Health Care Renewal

Genzyme's "Remarkable Business'Strategy" and Contaminated Drugs

2009-11-18T16:42:00.000-05:00

In June, 2009, an article in the Boston Globe described how the Boston area based biotechnology company Genzyme sold some astonishlingly expensive drugs, using

a remarkable business strategy: In countries from Colombia to Taiwan to Libya, the Cambridge firm has compiled an extraordinary track record of searching out patients like Tania, providing desperately needed treatment, and then successfully pressing their governments, even poor ones, to pay full price for the most expensive drugs in the world.

The article focused on how Genzyme marketed Cerezyme for Gaucher's disease.

When Genzyme Corp. first introduced a bioengineered drug for Gaucher (pronounced GO-shay) disease in the 1990s, the very idea seemed almost absurd to most people in the pharmaceutical industry. It was expensive to manufacture, there were vanishingly few known patients, and it wasn't clear how you could sell enough of it to recoup research costs, never mind make a profit.

Genzyme's solution, elegant in its way, was to set a price high enough to earn a substantial profit no matter how small its pool of patients. Then the company surprised the medical world - and its investors on Wall Street - by showing that American health insurers could be persuaded to pay the six-figure price tag. And with the only effective treatment for Gaucher disease, Genzyme never needed to lower the price, even as production efficiencies raised profit margins on the drug to as much as 90 percent.

The drug started to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year, then hundreds of millions. Today this one drug, prescribed for about 5,000 patients, has transformed Genzyme and its chief executive, Henri Termeer, into one of the great success stories of biotechnology, fueling its expansion into a $16 billion company with offices and factories worldwide.

By the early 2000s, Genzyme had reached most of the known Gaucher patients in the United States, so it had begun pushing outward to new markets. Genzyme created divisions within the company to find overseas patients; it hired experts to cajole balky governments into paying for the patients' Cerezyme doses. Some of the company's successes were extraordinary: hundreds of patients in Brazil. Patients in Taiwan, Kuwait, and Bulgaria. The government of Libya's Colonel Moammar Khadafy pays for Cerezyme for a handful of patients.

As it notched these successes, the company stayed largely under the radar of public health activists who were pushing drugmakers to discount AIDS drugs and other lifesaving medications whose retail prices were financially out of reach to many governments.

Biotechnology drugs like Genzyme's, though crushingly expensive for each patient, were so rarely prescribed that they did not attract the same attention, and Genzyme followed an extremely disciplined 'one price' strategy: find patients; donate the drug at first if necessary, but press constantly to be paid full retail price.

The "one price" for Cerezyme in Costa Rica was $160,000 per year of therapy.

I thought about posting about this story when it came out, focusing, of course, on the amazing price of Cerezyme. However, then I wondered: while the price of Cerezyme seemed extremely high, could anyone say that it was outrageously and unfairly high? After all, the drug was expensive to develop and produce, could not be sold in volume, and provided apparently very effective treatment for an otherwise untreatable disease. So I put the article in a file, and did not post about it.

Then a few days later, another story ran in the Globe, this time about problems in the Genzyme plant that produces Cerezyme:

n an unprecedented move for Genzyme Corp., the state’s largest biotechnology company has halted production of two drugs for rare genetic disorders after a virus was discovered in production equipment at its Allston plant.

The drugs are used by 8,000 people worldwide and cost about $200,000 per patient annually. While the virus has the ability to taint the drugs, it is not considered harmful to humans, officials said. The manufacturing plant will remain shut through July while it is decontaminated as a precaution.

Shipments of the drugs, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, have been put on hold while the US Food and Drug Administration seeks assurance from the company that none of its inventory is compromised. Genzyme officials believe the inventory was not affected.

The current supply will need to be rationed, Genzyme said.

My first thought was that if Genzyme can charge so much for Cerezyme, at least it ought to be able to afford a pristine production process. On the other hand, I also realized that manufacturing processes in biotechnology are complex and difficult, perfection is not always possible, and the contamination in question did not appear harmful. So I put this article in the file too, and did not post about it either.

Four days ago, the Boston Globe published yet again about troubles in same manufacturing plant.

Genzyme Corp., the Cambridge biotechnology giant that has spent five months scrambling to regain its footing after detecting a virus at its Allston plant, is facing a new contamination problem: bits of steel, rubber, and fiber found in drugs made by the company and shipped from the same site.

Federal regulators yesterday warned doctors to look for foreign particles in five Genzyme drugs used to treat rare genetic disorders, including two - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - that have been rationed because of the viral contamination detected in the Allston Landing plant last summer. The five drugs represent roughly half of Genzyme’s $4.6 billion in annual sales.

Particles are believed to have been found in less than 1 percent of the Genzyme drugs based on product lots examined, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA warned physicians, however, to carefully examine vials of the products and filter them before they are given to patients - steps that are considered standard procedure within the industry. If they find particles, the FDA asked for the vials to be returned to the manufacturer. The agency warned that ingesting the particles could have effects that include allergic reactions and blood clotting.

FDA inspectors arrived at the Allston plant last month to begin an investigation into Genzyme’s production operations.

In addition, a New York Times article noted:

'Biological manufacturing is extremely complex and prone to problems,' including contamination, said Jean-Jacques Bienaime, chief executive of BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, a biotech company that also makes drugs for rare diseases, including one it co-developed with Genzyme. Mr. Bienaime said his company always maintained at least a year’s worth of inventory in case of a production outage.

But Genzyme did not have such an inventory of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme.

Finally, today the In Vivo blog posted a discussion of Genzyme's production woes which suggested that the two different types of contamination at the plant, and the failure of the company to reliably ship pure, unadulterated drug to patients were not simply the results of bad luck or failure to attain unattainable perfection.

Friday's announcement that bits of rubber and other detritus were found in vials of five different drugs manufactured at Genzyme's beleaguered Allston Landing plant was worthy of the satirical publication "The Onion"--except that it was true.

The picture grew murkier over the weekend, with the arrival of another Form 483 missive from FDA about ongoing manufacturing issues and a complete response for Lumizyme, Genzyme's enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe disease has been subject of more regulatory twists and turns than the plot of a Dan Brown novel.

The origin of the problem goes back three years, to the original approval of Myozyme, basically the same drug as Lumizyme only manufactured on a much smaller scale, at a 160-liter scale facility in Framingham. Genzyme underestimated the demand for the drug, and plans to shore up capacity with a 4000-liter facility in Belgium were put in place. Only as a stop gap, the company also decided to devote 1/6th of its manufacturing capacity at Allston to the making of the drug.

And that decision has proved problematic. The stress of running an aging plant full tilt meant there was no time for necessary facility upgrades that might threaten the inventory of drugs manufactured at Allston, among them Cerezyme for Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease. Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer admitted as much in the Nov. 16 investor call, noting '"the introduction of the production of Myozyme in Allston was a very significant factor in the complications we have experienced there.'

Too bad that realization didn't happen one year ago. That's when regulators started sending warning letters outlining concerns related to what sound like bread-and-butter manufacturing issues: microbial monitoring, equipment maintenance, and process controls.

What's most amazing is that problems are ongoing. Recall that six-week interlude this summer when the firm took the entire plant offline to sterilize it after discovering yet another unrelated problem--several bioreactors contaminated with a non-lethal to humans but problematic Vesivirus.

On the company's Nov. 16 call to investors, management confirmed that the latest 483 letter relates not to a new problem created by Genzyme's decontamination efforts but arising because of 'an older piece of equipment'. As Genzyme's EVP of Therapeutics, Biosurgery, and Corporate Operations said during a Q&Asession with analysts, '"There was a number of issues there that they [regulators] highlighted and many of which we were very aware of and working to address.'

Management's solution? Take the plant off line again for a few weeks to, as Meeker puts it, 'allow us to move more quickly to address those issues.' Does everyone feel better now?

In some strange way, the very minor nature of these gaffes is the most damning element of the story. It throws management's judgment into question and again casts doubt on the ability of the current team to resolve a situation that should never have escalated to this level.

So now it is time to discuss Genzyme's production woes on Health Care Renewal. For $160,000 a year, it seems reasonable to expect that patients could expect a reasonably well-thought out, conservatively planned production process that would be able to reliably produce sufficient quantities of pure, unadulterated drug. Instead, Genzyme's "remarkable business strategy" did not seem to include adequate maintenance of production facilities with adequate capacities, or even keeping an adequate reserve supply of product in anticipation that over-working a single aging facility with aging equipment might lead to something breaking down.

By the way, for overseeing this "remarkable business strategy," Genzyme paid its CEO, Henri A Termeer, $13,773,782 in total compensation last year (per the 2009 proxy statement). Presumably mainly from the stock and option awards he has accumulated over the year, Mr Termeer now owns 4,080,387 shares of Genzyme stock, 1.5% of total outstanding shares. For that money, patients, share-holders, and line employees ought to expect "remarkable business strategies" that include attention to such basics as good maintenance of production facilities.

Maybe the company's well compensated (more than $400,000 a year) directors should have been more vigilant about overseeing the management's "remarkable business strategy." The board included Gail K Boudreaux, an Executive Vice President of UnitedHealth Group, Charles L Cooney PhD, the Haslam Professor of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dr Victor J Dzau, Chancellor of Health Affairs at Duke University and CEO of Duke University Health Systems, who seemingly have some relevant expertise, although the board also included Richard F Syron PhD, the former CEO of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, (Freddie Mac), who resigned in 2008 after the failure of the company which was later bailed out by the US government.

So once again we see how leaders of health care organizations, in this case perhaps blinded by the prodigious amounts of money they were making, failed to exercise rigorous oversight over how their company produced its product. The actual production part of biotechnology may seem far less glamorous than other aspects of the company. Yet, if a drug company cannot reliably produce pure, unadulterated drugs, all its advanced research, cutting edge finance, and glitzy marketing may be for nought.

This case is another argument for finding health care corporate leaders who remember that long term success comes from putting patients, not dollars, not glitz, first.

Seeking NIH to fund studies on medical ethics, conflicts of interest in medicine and research, and prescribing behavior

2009-11-17T09:20:00.006-05:00

Adriane Fugh-Berman MD is principal investigator (PI) of the PharmedOut project. PharmedOut is an independent, publicly funded Georgetown University Medical Center project that educates physicians about industry influence on prescribing. project that empowers physicians to identify and counter inappropriate pharmaceutical promotion practices. PharmedOut promotes evidence-based medicine by providing news, resources, and links to pharma-free CME courses.

PharmedOut is requesting that the U.S. NIH (National Institutes of Health) fund more research into ethics, conflicts of interest, and prescribing behavior. One hundred researchers, clinicians, and ethicists have signed a letter sponsored by PharmedOut asking NIH to fund research on medical ethics, conflicts of interest, and industry influence on prescribing behavior. Stimulus funds have increased the NIH budget by ten billion dollars, but NIH has no mechanism for funding research on how commercial interests affect the choice of medical therapeutics.

Signers include Virginia Barbour MD, Chief Editor of PLoS Medicine, Jerome Kassirer, MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Jerry Avorn MD, the Harvard physician who invented academic detailing, Kay Dickersin PhD, Director of the U.S. Cochrane Center, and Susan Wood, PhD, former head of the FDA Office of Women’s Health Research, who resigned over political influence regarding FDA decisions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B. Institutional signers include the Public Library of Science, the American Medical Student Association, the National Physicians Alliance, Consumers Union, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the National Women’s Health Network.

The letter, sent to NIH today, is available at http://www.pharmedout.org/NIHLetter.pdf (PDF) and below:

Nov. 17, 2009

From: Adriane Fugh-Berman MD
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Georgetown University Medical Center
Box 571460
Washington DC 20057-1460
Phone: (202) 687-7845
Fax: (202) 687-7407
ajf29 AT georgetown DOT edu

To: Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD
Director
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892

Dear Dr. Collins,

We are writing to ask NIH to fund studies on medical ethics, conflicts of interest in medicine and research, and prescribing behavior. NIH funds a substantial portion of the generation and dissemination of evidence, but the uptake of that evidence and its translation into clinical practice is strongly affected by the complex web of relationships that exists among industry, academicians, medical educators and clinicians.

There is growing evidence that each strand of this web is compromised by ethical lapses and financial conflicts of interest. The recent disclosure of ghostwritten articles, physician payoffs, and the use of academic opinion leaders to increase markets for FDA-regulated products indicate that ethical lapses may permeate biomedical research. A PLoS Medicine editorial in September called ghostwriting “The dirty little secret of medical publishing” and notes “the systematic manipulation and abuse of scholarly publishing by the pharmaceutical industry and its commercial partners in their attempt to influence the health care decisions of physicians and the general public.” [1] An October 1 editorial in the Boston Globe called for a ban on industry speaker fees to physicians. [2] Last month, a commentary in JAMA called for physicians to pay for continuing medical education (CME), [3] citing a recent Institute of Medicine report [4] that criticized physicians’ reliance on industry-funded education.

A stated goal of the NIH is to “exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.” Could the muted effect that large, definitive NIH studies, including the WHI, ALLHAT, and CATIE, have had on clinical practice be due to commercial influences? To what extent have ghostwritten articles corrupted the medical and scientific literature? The extent to which industry influences the interpretation of science is unknown.

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, in the September 17th issue of Nature, commenting on Senator Grassley’s investigation of academic medical centers, said “People flouted the rules, didn’t disclose, and did it for years on end, repeatedly.” [5]

In your role as the director of “the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation,” we ask that you acknowledge the research gap on the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influence on medical decisionmaking and set in motion a process that leads to recognition of the importance of funding studies on research ethics, the beliefs and behaviors of researchers and clinicians, and the effects of industry-academic relationships on the generation and dissemination of medical knowledge.

Between bench and bedside lies a path treacherous with ethical quandaries. NIH is the best place to launch and support a scientifically rigorous inquiry into the state of research ethics, industry-academic relationships, and the effect of these relationships on human health. There is currently no identifiable mechanism through which NIH would fund this research.

Your leadership regarding the importance of this issue as one the NIH needs to direct resources towards is essential. We hope to discuss these issues in a face-to-face meeting.

Sincerely,

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD
Associate Professor, Georgetown University Medical Center
Director, PharmedOut

ajf29 AT georgetown DOT edu
http://pharmedout.org

[and others whose signatures can be seen at the PDF - ed.]

[1] Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger. PLoS Medicine, September 8, 2009. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000156

[2] Keep Doctors Independent; Ban Fees From Drug Makers. Boston Globe, October 1, 2009. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/01/keep_doctors_independent_ban_fees_from_drug_makers/

[3] Campbell EG, Rosenthal M. Reform of Continuing Medical Education: Investments in Physician Human Capital. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1807-1808.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/16/1807?home

[4] Institute of Medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; April 28, 2009. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/47464/65721.aspx

[5] Wadman M. The Senator’s sleuth. Nature. 2009 Sept;461(17):330-4.

This letter caught my eye, and I expressed support as follows, adding an additional angle to Dr. Fugh-Berman's letter:

Dear Dr. Fugh-Berman,

As a blogger at Healthcare Renewal, I will enthusiastically sign on to and endorse your letter calling on NIH to fund more research into ethics, conflicts of interest, and prescribing. I also wish to add an extended point:

The issues of ethics and conflict of interest also affect healthcare information technology (HIT), and ultimately physician practice. HIT applications are experimental medical devices now being pushed upon physicians via the Office of the National Coordinator and HHS. These medical devices are soon to undergo regulation as such in the EU (pdf report from the Swedish Medical Products Agency here), Canada, the U.S. and other countries as well.

They are used in patient care without patient consent. Their use holds significant potential to monitor and enforce practices deemed appropriate by whomever has the most influence on the bodies controlling the use of these technologies and the data they generate.

From that perspective, and from the perspective of the 2009 National Research Council report that calls for accelerating interdisciplinary research in biomedical informatics, computer science, social science [i.e., the social and ethical implications of health IT], and health care engineering as a sine qua non of health IT success, I believe it is time for NIH to take a leadership role in regulating these devices, conflicts of interest in the health IT industry, and the ethics of their use.

I perhaps should have written "I believe it is time for NIH to take a leadership role in sponsoring research on regulating these devices, conflicts of interest in the health IT industry, and the ethics of their use", rather than calling on NIH to be a regulator. However, until the regulatory affairs concerning health IT are in order, I felt the stronger statement appropriate.

-- SS

Merck Seeks Medical Informatics Dud On The Cheap @ $30/hr

2009-11-16T20:00:00.044-05:00

At the post "Medical Informatics, Pharma, Health IT, and Golden Advice That Sits Sadly Unused" and other posts I lamented the fact that the pharma sector (in deep decline due to scientific mediocrity, ill-qualified leadership, public image tarnished by scandal, and other reasons), as well as the Healthcare IT industry (now also racked by similar issues and undergoing a Senate investigation while its products are being found to show little benefit) neglected a scientific discipline that might actually help them achieve the goals of better products, better patient care, and stronger profits.

At that post I specifically wrote about pharma that:

... In recent correspondences with colleagues I was reminded of a letter I wrote seven years ago that was published in Bio-IT World, a journal about biomedicine focusing mainly on pharma, bioinformatics and related fields.

As the sole formally-trained Medical Informatics specialist at Merck, I wrote:

Medical Informatics MIA [Missing in Action - ed.]
Bio-IT World
August 13, 2002

Dear Bio-IT World:

I enjoyed reading the article "Informatics Moves to the Head of the Class" (June Bio·IT World). Thank you for spotlighting the National Library of Medicine (NLM) training programs in medical informatics and bioinformatics, of which I am a graduate (Yale, 1994).

Bioinformatics appears to receive more media attention and offer more status, career opportunities, and compensation than the less-prestigious medical informatics.

This disparity, however, may impede the development of next-generation medicines. Bioinformatics discoveries may be more likely to result in new medicines, for example via pharmacogenomics, when they are coupled with large-scale, concurrent, ongoing clinical data collection. At the same time, applied medical informatics, as a distinct specialty, is essential to the success of extensive clinical data collection efforts, especially at the point of care.

Hospital and provider MIS personnel are best equipped for implementing business-oriented IT, not clinical IT. Implementing clinical IT in patient-care settings constitutes one of the core competencies of applied medical informaticists.

Informatics specialists with a bioinformatics focus — even those coming from the new joint programs — usually are not proficient in hospital business and management issues that impede adoption of clinical IT in patient care settings. Such organizational and territorial issues are in no small way responsible for the low utilization of clinical IT in patient care settings.

It will be important for medical informaticists focused in the clinical domain and bioinformaticists specializing in the molecular domain to collaborate with other specialists in order to best integrate clinical and genomic data.

[note: I was directed to add the "with other specialists" phrase by internal reviewers at Merck; it was not in my original piece. My intent was that bioinformatics and medical informatics specialists collaborate with each other - ed.]

Further information on these issues can be found in the book Organizational Aspects of Health Informatics: Managing Technological Change, by Nancy M. Lorenzi and Robert T. Riley (Springer-Verlag, 1995). Various publications from the medical informatics community, such as the American Medical Informatics Association (www.amia.org) and the International Medical Informatics Association (www.imia.org), are also useful.

Scot Silverstein, MD
Director, Published Information Resources & The Merck Index
Merck Research Laboratories

I was also responsible for the entry of the term "Medical Informatics" into the controlled vocabulary pool used for various purposes at Merck.

After a mere seven years, it looks like someone there has realized the need for Medical Informatics expertise.

Unfortunately, consistent with prior posts including an Open Letter to Merck CEO Richard Clark on informatics, and the observation that bioinformatics has probably hit a hard wall of stagnation due to disciplinary insularity and resultant inadequate collaboration with its medical counterpart, it's clear pharma hasn't yet fully received the message -- in line with this medieval drawing.

I wad directed to this job posting for a one-year Medical Informatics temp position:

Nov. 2, 2009

Position : SCIENTIST –Pharma ("Medical Informatics Scientist"
Location: Boston, MA
Length: 1 YEAR
Rate: $38/hr Max

[Thirty-eight dollars per hour, max? Holy cow - ed.]

Client needs an innovative, talented, agile leader in the field of Medical Informatics --with experience connecting genomic analyses/information with patient medical records -- to help position Merck in the rapidly evolving space of personalized medicine. --solid experience in statistics, bioinformatics, medical informatics, and programming -- 3+ yrs of experience developing and using text analytics and NLP for extraction of information from medical records. -- 5+ yrs of people and project management experience -- solid biology background including experience with oncology vocabularies/ontologies -- experience with genomic data analysis (gene expression, genotyping, sequencing), biomarkers, and pharmacogenetics applied to clinical samples -- 5+ yrs of scientific programming experience -- comfortable working with physicians and IT groups [a "medical informatics" leader would be far more than "comfortable" in such settings - ed.] -- familiar with drug discovery and development process.

*Responsibilities:*

Actual Job Title: "Medical Informatics Scientist" Helps develop and implement Merck's medical informatics strategy, supporting personalized medicine initiatives at Merck. Merck's Partnership with the Moffitt Cancer Research Center will be the main starting point. Collaborates with Merck Therapeutic Areas, and Merck and Moffitt IT groups to prototype medical informatics solutions for collaborative implementation. Provides flexible scripts, prototype data pipelines, DB design, mockups, product management, including requirements for software design and development. Leads collaboration with knowledge management area and leading academic labs to develop/refine text- based natural language processing (NLP) methods for standardizing medical informatics data, defining vocabularies, and building pipelines.

Please send the updated resume of the consultant along with the rate,
location and contact information. Please make sure the Consultant's skills
match the requirement. After reviewing the resume I will contact you if I
need more information.

Thanks,

Anand Bandarupally
Nihaki Systems Inc
346 Georges Road, Suite # 1, Dayton, NJ 08810.

That's a very tall order.

$38 per hour max - as a temp without benefits - probably works out to something like two thirds of that per hour after health insurance, taxes, etc. Not to mention the expense of the Boston area.

So, a "talented, agile leader in Medical Informatics" - who has made the sacrifice to invest time and energy into training in the field - is worth about $30 per hour to a major pharma.

This eyebrow-raising absurdity should really alarm the stockholders, Moffatt Cancer Center leaders, the Boards of both Merck and Moffatt, the leadership of the Medical Informatics community, and anyone with an interest in the development of new medicines and the economic stability that results from success in that domain.

Also, in my view anyone with significant skills who takes such a position at that type of compensation is doing the profession of Medical Informatics a disservice, by further lowering the "comps" for the field, that is, the benchmark data and formulas that HR recruiters use to gauge professional salary ranges. (One might wonder who in fact came up with this penurious figure to begin with).

Put simply, it seems Merck seeks a Medical Informatics dud who will work for peanuts, and probably provide results to match in "building pipelines" of new and safer drugs.

-- SS

The Editorial that Wasn't: Evidence for Systematic Research Manipulation Undetectable by Critical Review

2009-11-16T16:55:00.000-05:00

Woe to those of us who have been advocates for evidence-based medicine. A short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values.

Evidence-based medicine is based on some key assumptions. One is that a systematic review will reveal all the results of research studies that are relevant to the issue at hand. A second is that while the research studies may be flawed and imperfect, they are reported honestly.

Unfortunately, as we have repeatedly discussed, there is more and more evidence that a systematic review will not reveal all relevant results, because research studies may be suppressed, perhaps often, when their results are unfavorable to vested interests. (Look here for further discussion.) There is also considerable anecdotal evidence that the design, implementation, and analysis of research studies may be manipulated to make the results more likely to favor vested interests. (Look here for further discussion.)

An article by Vedula et al just published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine suggests that such manipulation might be systemic, and that the reporting of manipulated studies may not clearly show what manipulation was done. (1)

To summarize, the authors got access through legal proceedings to internal study protocols and research reports from clinical trials sponsored by Parke-Davis (later merged into Pfizer Inc) of gabapentin (Neurontin) for a variety of clinical problems other than seizures. Gabapentin was originally marketed as an anti-seizure drug, but Pfizer later "admitted guilt for off-label marketing." (We discussed the stealth marketing campaign for Neurontin here.) Vedula et al compared the primary outcome variables specified in the original research protocols, internal research reports, and any publications of the trials' results. They identified 21 trials, 13 of which were published. For 12 of the 13, the authors had access to the internal protocol, report, or both. The main results were:

For 8 of the 12 published trials, there was a disagreement between the definition of the primary outcome in the protocol and that in the published report.... Sources of disagreement included the introduction of an entirely new primary outcome in the published report (in the case of 6 trials); failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes in the published report, even though the protocol did distinguish between them (2 trials); relegation of a primary outcome in the protocol to a secondary outcome in the published report (2 trials); and failure to include in the published report one or more primary outcomes specified in the protocol (5 trials).

Furthermore, it appeared that failure of published articles to clearly and fully report results in terms of the original, pre-specified primary outcome variables occurred when these comparisons were not favorable to gabapentin. As the authors summarized:

Thus, trials with findings that were not statistically significant (P≥0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome, according to the internal documents, either were not published in full or were published with a changed primary outcome.

As shown in Figure 3, all the changes that took place between what was specified in the protocol, what was known before publication (as presented in the internal company research reports), and what was reported to the public led to a more favorable presentation in the medical literature of gabapentin's efficacy for unapproved indications.

They concluded:

We are concerned that the reporting practices observed in our analysis do not meet the ethical standards for clinical research or maintain the integrity of scientific knowledge. Fair and honest treatment of patients enrolled in clinical trials of any kind requires full, open, and unbiased reporting. Journal publication, a formalized platform for scientific discourse and dissemination of knowledge, should not be used as a marketing tool for off-label drug use.

Reporting biases such as those we describe here increase the likelihood that interventions will appear to be effective when they are not. Such biases can lead to the omission of negative findings in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and in evidence-based guidelines. For example, the 2005 Cochrane systematic review regarding the effectiveness of gabapentin for acute and chronic pain concluded that it is effective on the basis of published findings and should now be updated with the inclusion of unpublished information made available through litigation.

I believe that the article by Vedula et al is particularly important because it shows what appears to be systematic manipulation of the analysis and reporting of multiple clinical trials of the same drug (but for different indications) that had the effect of making the drug appear efficacious when it likely was not. Furthermore, the manipulation was concealed. The published research articles did not completely describe what the intended primary efficacy outcome variables were, did not provide results in terms of these variables, and instead provided results only in terms of variables that were chosen post-hoc as new primary outcome variables.

To address that latter point, I independently reviewed three of the research publications cited by Vedula et al.(2,3,4) All three were noted to have reported significant results favoring gabapentin in terms of a primary efficacy outcome variable that was not identified as such in the corresponding studies' original research protocols or reports (see the supplementary data provided with the New England Journal article.) Per my review, none of the three published articles offered any hint that what they reported as primary outcome variables were not the variables originally chosen in that capacity, nor did they identify what those original primary outcome variables were, or how comparisons made using them turned out.

The implications of the article by Vedula et al are very important. Hence, I was surprised that the article appeared without an accompanying editorial to discuss these implications, and that its publication did not generate much media interest.

So that gives me an opportunity to comment further.

One could start with the implications for evidence-based medicine. As noted above, a short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values. Evidence-based medicine depends on critical, rigorous review, but the review process is generally done under the assumptions that research publications honestly describe what was done and what its results were. The review process was never designed to detect dishonest reporting or find information that was deliberately concealed. Manipulation of research (design, analysis, and implementation), concealment of that manipulation, and outright suppression of research threaten the foundations of evidence-based medicine. Yet the article by Vedula et al is part of a growing body of evidence that such manipulation, concealment and suppression are widespread, and done to serve vested interests, often commercial.

That is a huge problem for proponents of evidence-based medicine, but also for physicians who want their practices to be based on science, for patients who want their care to be based on science, and for all those in society who see the advancement of medical science as a way to improve peoples' lives.

As senior author Professor Kay Dickersin noted in an interview with Bloomberg "The trouble is, as a scientist, the publication has always been held up to me as the truth. It's the scientific record. What this study indicated is we can't believe that record."

Furthermore, to be a bit more concrete, most physicians, patients, and policy makers depend on what appears to be honest clinical research to make decisions about individual care and health policy. Deliberate and deceitful manipulation of clinical research to favor sponsors' products has likely lead to excessive use of and payments for drugs and devices that are less effective than advertised, if not useless or dangerous. Thus, it is likely that such manipulation is partially responsible for ever increasing health costs and poor health outcomes.

Finally, we need to start thinking about how we can detect and compensate for manipulation of clinical research in the past, and deter such manipulation in the future. One possible deterrent would be, as was noted by Vedula et al, detailed clinical trials registries that contain complete information about trial protocols. For this to be effective, there need to be mechanisms to assure compliance, and penalties for non-compliance. Moreover, since clinical research is now global, the registries must have global scope, and enforced assurance of compliance must also be global.

Registries might decrease future manipulation and suppression of research. No one has suggested, as far as I know, a systematic way to detect and correct for previous manipulation. It would require a major, global investigative effort to uncover manipulation, and it would be a major scientific and policy endeavor to reveal most suppressed research and correct most manipulations.

However, before anything is done, patients, physicians and policy makers must acknowledge and understand the problem. Yet it seems that even discussing these may be topics that are very uncomfortable for some of us. The longer we shrink from addressing them, however, the worse will be the results for patients, physicians, science and society.

References

1. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored tirals of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1963-1971. Link here.

2. Mathew NT, Rapoport A, Saper J et al. Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis. Headache 2001; 41: 119-128. Link here.

3. Vieta E, Goikolea JM, Martinea-Aran A et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, prophylaxis study of adjunctive gabapentin for bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatr 2006; 67: 473-477. Link here.

4. Caraceni A, Zecca E, Bonezzi C et al. Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the gabapentin cancer pain study group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2909-2917. Link here.

Omnicare, IVAX Settle

2009-11-13T15:46:00.001-05:00

Settlements and kickbacks and corporate integrity agreements, oh my (to the tune of "lions and tigers and bears, oh my")

To quote the BusinessWeek version of the story:

A $112 million settlement involving alleged drug kickbacks that the Justice Dept. announced with the nation's largest nursing home pharmacy and a generic drug manufacturer on Nov. 3 is part of a wide-ranging investigation of suspected Medicaid fraud by the pharmaceutical industry.

Under Tuesday's settlement, Omnicare will pay $98 million plus interest to the federal government and a number of state Medicaid programs to settle allegations that it participated in kickback schemes with IVAX, J&J [Johnson & Johnson], and two nursing home chains. IVAX, a subsidiary of Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA), agreed to pay $14 million plus interest.

Omnicare and IVAX entered 'corporate integrity agreements' to establish new training and policies to prevent future problems. Neither company admitted any wrongdoing.

Here are some details of the alleged wrong-doing:

Omnicare is a publicly traded pharmacy benefit manager for long-term care facilities that operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It had revenues of $6.3 billion in 2008.

According to the settlement, Omnicare allegedly received $8 million in payments from IVAX in 2000-04 to buy $50 million in generic drugs and recommend that physicians prescribe them to their nursing home patients. Omnicare entered the contract even though its outside counsel repeatedly warned it might violate the federal anti-kickback law, the government alleged in its complaint, filed in March. Omnicare also took payments from New Brunswick (N.J.)-based J&J from 1999 to 2004 to aggressively persuade doctors to prescribe Risperdal, an anti-psychotic drug, and discourage use of alternative medications, according to the settlement.

In addition, Omnicare allegedly paid $50 million to nursing home chains Mariner Health Care and SavaSeniorCare in 2004 to keep referring their Medicaid and Medicare patients to Omnicare for pharmacy services.

It is noteworthy that these activities went on despite repeated advice of at least one attorney:

According to the government's complaint, Omnicare again ignored its outside counsel's advice that the payment was illegal.

The activities also went on despite Omnicare's participation in a previous corporate integrity agreement.

This isn't the first time Omnicare has had to settle civil fraud complaints filed by the government. In 2006, Omnicare agreed to pay $102 million to settle Medicaid fraud cases in 43 states, without admitting wrongdoing, including a $52.5 million settlement with Michigan. One complaint accused Omnicare of switching two drugs from tablet to capsule form to boost Medicaid payments. Omnicare had to enter a five-year corporate integrity agreement.

As I have written again and again regarding many other cases that resulted in legal settlements or guilty pleas, the companies involved only need to pay fines, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts will suffer any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior.

For once, the coverage of this case included some opinions similar to mine:

The Office of Inspector General of the Health & Human Services Dept. has the authority to bar health-care companies from participating in the Medicaid, Medicare, and other federal health programs as a penalty for violating anti-fraud laws. That's a severe sanction given the huge size of those programs. The settlements with Omnicare and IVAX left open the possibility of exclusion.

Some experts say Omnicare should be barred as a repeat offender, to send a strong message to other pharmaceutical industry players that fraud will no longer be tolerated. 'If the government were really serious, they'd give Omnicare the death sentence,' said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who follows the pharmaceutical industry. 'Then all the other players would say this isn't just the cost of doing business, this is a bet-the-company thing.'

West declined to comment on whether the Justice Dept. will recommended the exclusion of the two companies, saying only that his office works closely with the OIG's office on appropriate penalties.

[Patrick] Burns, with Taxpayers Against Fraud, said the government has been hesitant to exclude health-care companies for fraud, fearing it will be seen as overzealous. But he believes that's the wrong attitude. 'Doing business with the U.S. government is a privilege, not a right,' he said. 'I think Omnicare has abused the privilege.'

Finally, note that the description of this case suggested that the kickbacks had effects on physicians' prescribing and hence the use of specific drugs. The Justice Department's filing alleged that in return for the payment from IVAX, Omnicare tried to get physicians to prescribe that company's products, and that in return for the payment from J&J, Omnicare pushed them to prescribe the atypical anti-psychotic Risperdal. Thus the activities that went on this case could have lead to the use of inappropriate, useless or even harmful drugs by certain patients.

I submit that would-be health care reformers who want to improve care, reduce costs and improve access should advocate for real negative consequences for people who implement, direct or approve the various versions of fraud, kickbacks, and miscellaneous corruption and malfeasance we have discussed on Health Care Renewal.

By the way, it appears one of the members of Omnicare's Board of Directors is also a leader in academic health care. She is Andrea R. Lindell, DNSc, RN, who is also Dean of the College of Nursing at the University of Cincinnati. One would think that someone who thus boasts "the success of our students, faculty, staff and alumni who work together to promote excellence in education, research, service and practice" needs to keep a closer eye on the ethical aspects of her company's management.

Suppression of Clinical Trials of Sumatriptan

2009-11-13T12:18:00.000-05:00

Correspondence to the Lancet two weeks ago revealed another instance in which clinical research studies that failed to provide results favorable to a sponsor's product were suppressed. [Tfeft-Hansen PC. Unpublished clinical trials of sumatriptan. Lancet 2009; 374: 1501-2. Link here.]

Sumatriptan, sold as Imitrex by GlaxoSmithKline, and now available generically, is a commonly used treatment for acute migraine headaches. A Cochrane review from 2003 concluded that multiple clinical trials versus placebo showed that the drug is a safe and effective treatment of acute migraine [link here.] A comparison of multiple guidelines for headache treatment noted considerable variability in how guidelines were developed, but that a number recommended sumatriptan as a first-line agent based apparently mainly on trials against placebo, while noting a lack of head-to-head comparisons among sumatriptan (and other triptans) and older, simpler treatments, like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). [Schuurmans A, van Weel C. Pharmacologic treatment of migraine: comparison of guidelines. Can Fam Physician 2005; 51: 838-843. Link here.]

Tfelt-Hansen had written a review of treatment of migraine with a combination of ergotamine and caffeine, which included a single trial comparing that combination to sumatriptan. He noted that the results of this trial appeared on "the homepage of the Swedish Medical Agency," but were not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The trial suggested that sumatriptan was inferior to the combination.

Tfelt-Hansen looked up this trial in the GlaxoSmithKline trial register. Recall that this database was the source of information on unpublished trials of Avandia (rosiglitazone, GSK) that Dr Steven Nissen and colleagues meta-analyzed to suggest that Avandia may produce adverse cardiovascular effects (see post here). Recall also that the registry was created as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer that accused GSK of concealing clinical research unfavorable to its drug paroxetine (Paxil, GSK). [Steinbrook R. Registration of clinical trials - voluntary or mandatory? N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1820-1822. Link here.]

Tfelt-Hansen's main finding was that there were six trials comparing sumatriptan to other treatments, including paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus metaclopamide (2 trials), buclizine chloride, paracetamol and codeine (2 trials), ergotamine tartrate, cyclizine HCl, caffeine (1 trial), and ergotamine tartrate plus caffeine (1 trial). In 3 trials, sumatriptan treated patients were not significantly more likely to have relief of their headaches within 2 hours. In 1 trial, there was a non-significant trend favoring sumatriptan. In two trials, sumatriptan was superior to the comparison. In 4 trials, the rate of relief after sumatriptan treatment was 50% or less.

Tfelt-Hansen concluded:

It is easy to understand why these RCTs were never published when sumatriptan was introduced: in only one of the oral trials did more than 50% of patients have headache relief (the primary efficacy measure) after sumatriptan 100 mg for the first attack treated (table), and in the RCT with rectal sumatriptan, the drug was found inferior to ergotamine. These findings would at the time have spoiled the very positive picture of sumatriptan as a new wonder drug for migraine.

Of course, this points out that health care corporations may regard clinical trials more as marketing tools than as science. We have discussed numerous instances in which trials that did not show commercial sponsors' products in a favorable light were suppressed by these sponsors.

Individual trials only at best produce approximations of the truth about the drugs or devices they compare. Trials may be positive due to chance alone when the test or treatment under study actually has no good effects. Post-hoc suppression of "negative" trials therefore may exaggerate the benefits (and safety) of tests or treatments. Physicians and patients who try to uphold the ideals of evidence-based medicine, and base decisions on the best possible evidence can be misled when evidence unfavorable to vested interests is systematically suppressed. Suppression of evidence unfavorable to vested interests may lead to excess use of tests and treatments that really are less beneficial or more risky than the published evidence suggested, and to willingness to pay exaggerated prices for such tests and treatments. Thus suppression of evidence can lead to excess costs and bad outcomes.

Also, as we have said before, suppression of results of clinical research that are unfavorable to the vested interests of research sponsors violates the trust of research subjects. Research subjects are often assured that their participation is for the benefit of science and health care. Suppressing results unfavorable to vested interests distorts science and makes health care more dysfunctional.

Evidence that is purposefully suppressed is by definition hard to find. Nonetheless, we have seen several recent examples in which suppressed evidence was later revealed, and when combined with existing evidence, showed that previously hyped treatments were really not as safe and effective as was thought. In particular, the suppression by various drug companies of evidence unfavorable to new anti-depressants they were marketing has generated some discussion (see post here).

This parade of examples suggests that stronger measures are needed to assure that clinical research is not suppressed due to the vested interests of research sponsors. One seemingly radical, but increasingly plausible approach would ban corporations that sell health care products or services from influencing clinical research done to evaluate those products. Would be health care reformers who really want to improve outcomes, improve access and decrease costs might want to think about how to make the evidence available about the outcomes of health care interventions more honest.

Boston Scientific to Plead Guilty (of Suppressing Information about Failure-Prone Defibrillators)

2009-11-11T17:23:00.000-05:00

In the early days of Health Care Renewal (2005-2006) we posted several times about allegations that Guidant hid information about defects in the implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) the company manufactured. As we noted in early 2005 here, Guidant executives allegedly knew that ICDs made from 2000-2002 were at risk for short-circuiting and failing, thus making them unable to deliver potentially life saving electrical shocks meant to prevent cardiac arrests, but the company only revealed the problem in 2005. By failing to notify physicians and the public, Guidant executives let expensive and profitable, but potentially useless devices to continue to be implanted, potentially increasing the risk of sudden death for the patients who received them. Then here we noted reports that Guidant continued to ship failure-prone devices even after it had designed and started to manufacture new ICDs that were supposed to be less likely to fail. By June, 2005 we posted that Guidant had recalled thousands of ICDs, including models that were previously not identified as likely to fail. Later that year, the case rated an article by Robert Steinbrook in the New England Journal of Medicine. Towards the end of 2005, we noted that Eliot Spitzer had sued Guidant for fraud. At the end of the year, more information appeared, suggesting that Guidant knew the ICDs were flawed, but continued to sell them. Still more appeared early in 2006. Then the business media became interested in the bidding war between Johnson and Johnson and Boston Scientific for Guidant, provoking a bit more interest in the tale of the suppression of data about the flawed ICDs.

And then there was silence. The story of the suppressed information about the defective defibrillators became old news, as did the story of the merger between Boston Scientific and Guidant. The story vanished, nothing more happened, until last week

A lone echo from this story from what now seems long ago was heard, as reported by Bloomberg,

Boston Scientific Corp. agreed to pay $296 million to settle a U.S. Justice Department investigation into its Guidant unit’s handling of heart devices and restated third-quarter results to show a loss.

Guidant will plead to two criminal misdemeanors for failing to properly alert the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about problems with some of its implantable defibrillators, Boston Scientific said today in a statement. The probe concerned product advisories sent by Guidant before its acquisition by Boston Scientific in April 2006, the parent company said.

So even though Boston Scientific's now subsidiary Guidant will plead guilty to a crime involving suppression of information about the flaws in its defibrillators, the current CEO of Boston Scientific denied anyone did anything wrong:

'Guidant and its employees acted in good faith and believed they complied with applicable laws and regulations,' Boston Scientific Chief Executive Officer Ray Elliott said in the company’s statement. 'We elected to resolve this matter so we could put it behind us and devote our full energies and resources to developing our innovative technologies.'

I guess it's not hard to put a little matter of criminal conduct behind a big health care corporation and its leaders when the only downside of pleading guilty is a fine paid seven years after the criminal conduct occurred. Moreover, that fine that will come out of the company treasury, and its impact will thus be spread among stock-holders, employees, and customers, not targeted at those who performed, directed or approved the acts that lead to the guilty plea.

Although the Bloomberg report was more detailed than others I found, none mentioned that the information that was concealed back in the day was about the failure of an expensive device that was supposed to be life-saving, and whose failure might doom some of its recipients to an early death. Anyone reading these late 2009 articles would get a sense that Guidant personnel were guilty of some technical reporting violations, not of withholding information that supposed life-saving treatments might be useless.

As in the case of many other cases that resulted in legal settlements or guilty pleas, the company involved only needs to pay a fine, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts will suffer any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior.

In this vein, note that in 2005, Boston Scientific agreed to a $74 million settlement of charges that it knowingly sold a defective coronary artery stent system (see post here), which did not deter the company from merging with Guidant.

This case also demonstrates how the anechoic effect continues. Bad behavior by large health care organizations still gets little notice, and when it is noticed, its real clinical and human effects are discounted.

Real health care reform would address how leaders of health care organizations can continue to act with impunity even when their actions can lead to sickness, disability, and death.

Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: Another Update and a Welcome Development

2009-11-10T23:28:00.006-05:00

In "Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: An Update" I wrote about the disputed essay on electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney.

The essay was entitled "A Critical Essay on the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck?"

I am happy to report that an updated version of the essay, version 5, is now available from Dr. Patrick's university web site at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 . It can be downloaded from the icon at Item 6.

This is a welcome development.

The essay is now labeled as an Op-Ed (Opinion Editorial).

-- SS

The Kelo Case Redux Once More: Pfizer Pulls Out and the "Carefully Formulated" Development Plan Collapses

2009-11-10T17:15:00.000-05:00

Four years ago we posted (here, here and here) about the controversial US Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case. Most discussion of the case at the time focused on individual property rights vs the power of the government to promote economic development, but the case had an important health care angle.

Briefly, the case centered on the taking of private property, including a house owned by Susette Kelo, by a not-for-profit organization, the New London (Connecticut) Development Corporation (NLDC) given the power of eminent domain by the New London city government. While the ostensible rationale for the taking was economic development, the action appeared to have been at the behest of Pfizer Inc, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, which had built a research and development facility in the city, and wanted a suitably upscale and sanitized environment for its workers.

As we previously posted, the NLDC's leadership had multiple conflicts of interest that involved ties to Pfizer. One board member was a Pfizer vice-president. The board president was married to another Pfizer vice-president. Pfizer wanted the part of New London that included Kelo's house made more attractive to complement its new research facility. The husband of the NLDC president had said, "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate. We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Kelo's and other property owners' protest of the taking went all the way to the US Supreme Court. As we posted here, the Court decided against the property owners by a 5-4 vote. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that the city's "determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - jobs and increased revenues." This majority opinion is important, because the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Many had interpreted this provision to mean that eminent domain could only be used to take property for public use, e.g., to build a road or a public school, but not for private purposes, like building upscale waterfront developments.

Two months ago, we posted on how the supposedly "carefully formulated" development plan had fallen apart. The land on which the Kelo house stood had never been developed, and remained a weedy lot.

This week, the (New London) Day reported:

Eight years after opening its state-of-the-art global research-and-development headquarters in New London, Pfizer Inc. announced Monday it will close the nearly $300 million complex within the next two years and consolidate local operations into its Groton campus.

Why did Pfizer decide to close the facility?

Pfizer earlier this year said nearly 20,000 jobs would be cut as a result of its merger with the New Jersey-based Wyeth. The company said Monday that about 15 percent of its overall R&D work force would be cut as part of that downsizing.

The result apparently will be the complete dissolution of the "carefully formulated" development plan.

The announced closing of the New London site came as a blow to a city that had counted on Pfizer to help revive its fortunes.

The loss of Pfizer as a keystone business in New London could put in further jeopardy the Fort Trumbull development that started in conjunction with Pfizer's move into the city but has left little but flattened buildings and eminent-domain angst in its wake.

So, the unfortunate Kelo case has become a vivid demonstration how badly government does when it partners with businesses and tries to pick corporate winners and losers. Unfortunately, it seems that much of what passes for US health care policy is such "corporate socialism." As we said before, instead of trying to pick corporate winners and losers, government would do better to act like a combination of an honest policeman on the beat, deterring and punishing dishonest behavior, and in impartial referee, trying to make sure everyone is playing the game honestly. But no doubt government officials used to mingling with the corporate superclass would not be comfortable in the roles of honest cop or impartial referee.

See also comments on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Hat tip to the PharmaLot blog.

Health IT Personnel: Want To Bone Up On Technology? Try This

2009-11-10T11:18:00.029-05:00

An interesting article appeared in an IT journal that merits brief mention with respect to electronic health records:

"Want to bone up on wireless tech? Try ham radio"
Computerworld, October 29, 2009

I find it interesting in that in no interaction that I recall with IT personnel, my amateur radio background and the deep understanding of technology it imparted seemed of interest or value to them.

Key point in the article:

"For IT professionals, ham radio can foster skills that are translatable into real-world wireless and wired networking applications."

I would extend this to many other IT-dependent areas.

Unfortunately, many IT personnel - and many so called physician directors of information systems - seem to be "appliance operators", a term hams use to describe people who can push buttons but lack a depth of understanding of what goes on "inside the box". Also expressed in ham radio terms, I have found most IT personnel in hospitals to be at the "CB operator" level of technological understanding, where "computer" equates to "cybernetic miracle," and computerization equates automatically to "improvement."

Breaker, breaker, big buddy!

For IT personnel, studying and then securing a ham radio license and experimenting might give them the technical skills they need to be more fully in control of their systems, rather than the systems being in control of them.

This physician-informaticist diagnosing and treating ailments in an electronic patient, the classic Ten Tec Corsair II amateur radio transceiver.

Such expertise could also help ameliorate the problems noted on this site regarding healthcare IT.

-- SS

(Amateur radio, extra class)

Paging (and Paying) "Dr Coca-Cola"

2009-11-09T16:24:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times Booster Shots blog announced that "Dr. Coca-Cola will see you now," noting opposition to the recently revealed alliance between the Coca-Cola Company and the American Academy of Family Physicians:

[in] a sharply worded letter sent Wednesday to Dr. Douglas E. Henley, the academy’s chief executive.

'We urge the AAFP to regain its credibility by rejecting the deal with Coca-Cola,' the letter stated. 'If the AAFP declines to do that, we urge your organization to reassert its support for the public health (and its own independence) by supporting a warning label on caloric sugar-sweetened beverages and a federal tax on soft drinks to support health promotion or health insurance programs.'

The letter was signed by 22 doctors, nutritionists and health advocates,

Dr Henley was not moved:

Henley told Food Navigator-USA.com that the academy was aware of the letter. But he stood by the partnership with Coke.

'We will move forward with this commitment together by providing educational materials on sweeteners and how to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle while still enjoying many of the foods and beverages consumers love,' he said in a statement.

Nonetheless, criticism of the deal has continued. A Kansas City Star editorial said:

the Leawood-based American Academy of Family Physicians has set a poor example when it comes to resisting the lure of the soft drink industry.

The academy has accepted a grant from Coca-Cola, reportedly in the neighborhood of $500,000. It will use the money for educational materials about drinks and sweeteners for its consumer Web site, FamilyDoctor.org. Leftover funds will go into the academy’s general budget.

In return, Coca-Cola gets what? Legitimacy, for one thing. Consumers are less likely to consider a product unhealthy if it’s listed as a partner with a leading physicians’ alliance.

In a more shameful scenario, the soft drink manufacturer would succeed in muting the message that the academy puts out to its consumers.

The editorial did not buy Dr Henley's assurances:

Academy leaders say they won’t allow the hefty corporate grant to compromise the organization’s integrity.

'We have total editorial control, as we always have, of FamilyDoctor.org,' said Executive Vice President Douglas Henley.

Henley added, 'I would hope folks won’t rush to judgment but hold us to the content we’re going to put on FamilyDoctor.org.'

But consumers accessing that information will soon be informed that information about soft drinks is being sponsored in part by Coca-Cola, 'a proud partner of FamilyDoctor.org.'

That’s a mixed message, regardless of the content.

Meanwhile, family physician and AAFP member Dr Howard Brody noted on his Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog how AAFP leaders continued to obfuscate:

AAFP President Dr. Lori Heim: obesity is more complex and that 'there's no one evil out there.'

Why does the question of whether it's a good idea for AAFP to take money from Coke so quickly segue into the question of whether Coke is 'evil'? (For our blogger colleague who likes logical fallacies, Roy Poses, this sounds like "straw man." [It sure does - Editor]) Why does it have to be: either they are evil or else it's just fine for us to take their money? What cannot it simply be that they have different interests--they are trying to make a buck selling beverages (some of which I enjoy drinking myself, I am pleased to report, if they don't have calories in them) while AAFP is trying to protect the public interest through credible health education? What part of conflict of interest don't you understand?

Some AAFP members went beyond criticism, as reported by the AP:

Dr. William Walker, public health officer for Contra Costa County near San Francisco, likened the alliance with ads decades ago in which physicians said mild cigarettes are safe,

Walker has been a member of the academy for 25 years but quit last week. He said 20 other doctors who work with his local medical practice also quit because of the Coke deal.

Nonetheless, as Dr Brody later posted,

Sadly, if the responses to this news report from AAFP leadership are accurate, the AAFP still does not get it. '[AAFP CEO Dr. Douglas] Henley said the academy regrets the resignations and hopes other members will not 'rush to judgment' before seeing the new content." News flash: we don't need to see the content to know there's something rotten in Denmark. The deal itself raises concerns about the credibility of anything AAFP posts about diet and obesity from now on.

So here we have the latest variant on institutional conflicts of interest affecting medical associations. We have noted (e.g., here) how professional societies have blithely accepted substantial funding from corporations which sell products physicians may prescribe for or implant in patients. This raises concerns that professional societies have become drug and device marketers. This conflicts with physicians' prime directive, to put the interests of individual patients ahead of their own, and hence to base decisions on which drugs to prescribe, tests to order, and procedures to do on maximizing benefits and minimizing harms for individual patients, not maximizing financial gain for physicians, or their organizations.

Family physicians are a respected source not only of decisions about tests and treatments, but about diet. Having the main family physician organization humming "things go better with Coke" suggests that professional advice could be co-opted by marketing. As Dr Brody noted above, the issue is not whether the product is good or bad, but is whether physicians are giving each patient the best possible advice.

One question implied by the "Dr Coca-Cola" story is why the leadership of the AAFP seems so oblivious to the conflict of interest issues it raises. As Dr Brody wrote:

What's even more depressing is that with the whole world telling them that they mishandled this affair, the AAFP still seems to think that the problem is someone else's.

I appreciate Dr Brody's depression, but note that this is not the first time that AAFP leadership has seemed tone deaf to the issue of the organization's institutional conflict of interest. In 2005, we posted how the AAFP had banned the "No Free Lunch" organization, which opposes most pharmaceutical marketing to physicians, from appearing in the exhibit hall of its annual meeting. The exhibit hall was otherwise populated by lavish exhibits by pharmaceutical and other health care corporation marketers.

The abstract for a 2006 article in Family Medicine [Standridge JB. Of doctor conventions and drug companies. Fam Med 2006; 38(7):518-20. Link here] began:

Pharmaceutical companies provide the majority of financial support for staging the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Annual Scientific Assembly. In return they are allowed to dominate the physical and mental environment.

The current web-site for the AAFP Foundation boasts of its corporate partners, which include many of the biggest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (at the "Pinnacle" level, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Purdue Pharma.

So adding Coca-Cola to the list of corporate sponsors does not seem like such a big step. In fact, being "Dr Coca-Cola" does not seem intrinsically more questionable than being "Dr Amgen," "Dr AstraZeneca," etc.

Nonetheless, one would think that the latest round of criticism would make the top leaders of this august professional society less comfortable about the organization's financial relationships with pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and now beverage corporations. I fear, though, that they may live too much in the sort of bubble that now protects top executives of most large health care organizations to really question their corporate ties. After all, according to the most recent (2007, covering 6/2007-5/2008) US Internal Revenue Service form 990 filed by the AAFP (via Guidestar), its leaders get sufficient compensation to put them into such a bubble. For example, Dr "Coca-Cola" Hensley received $441,027 regular compensation and $108,930 in benefits and deferred compensation, compared with a median compensation for family physicians in 2008 reported as $159,000 from one survey. Presumably "voluntary" officers got five- and six-figure "expense accounts and other allowances," maxing out at $195,648 for then President Dr James B King. It may be hard for leaders who are so comfortably recompensed by the organization to become uncomfortable about the financial relationships that make the largesse they receive seem less of a burden for members who may not be so well-paid. The leaders' comfort with the current arrangement, however, makes their organization more liable to be viewed as a drug, device, and now beverage marketer rather than a defender of physicians' professionalism. Maybe the leaders should accept more austere compensation, perhaps similar to what working family doctors get paid, as the price they need to pay to remove questions about their organization's real commitment to professionalism.

Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: An Update

2009-11-05T20:24:00.011-05:00

At the post "Academic Freedom Curtailed?" I wrote:

The essay on Emergency Department electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney, that I referenced in my posts "The Story of the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck" and "NSW Nightmare and Overuse of Computers" appears to have been censored. This apparently occurred at the level of the the government.

Professor Patrick has updated his web page that formerly contained a link to his essay on problems with EHR's in that state's EDs.

He advises:

... This document has been temporarily withdrawn by the university following a complaint from NSWHealth. I think the University has acted appropriately by investigating the complaint and I do not yet consider it an act of censorship. I am working through the issues with the University and expect that the essay will be re-published.

I would like to thank all the people who have written to me to offer support and I would encourage you to write to me if you are interested in the matter so that i can demonstrate to the university the importance of this issue to both the Australian and international communities. I do not wish for people to write to anyone else but me. I have no wish to run a public campaign and I am not available for statements to the press about this particular matter. This matter has brought to light many interesting and illuminating things that i will be happy to share in the next version of the Critical Essay.

Jon Patrick 27th October 2009 0930 Eastern Australian Summer time

He then follows up with this:

Update on the withdrawal of "Essay No.6"

It is now two weeks since the original essay was withdrawn. In that time I have been able to establish confidently that NSWHealth phoned my Head of Department and asked him to remove the article without giving a specific complaint. He refused. Subsequently a person from another faculty took up the cause and succeeded in persuading an appropriate person to order withdrawal of the essay. To this time i have not received a specific complaint let alone a written complaint. The Univeristy's Office of General Counsel has studied the essay at my request through my Dean, and found that it is "consistent with the University's Public Comment Policy". I am awaiting further investigations by the University.

Subsequently I have received many messages of support from around the world, and importantly much more information to be included in the essay. I am preparing a much enhanced version.

5th November 2009 1150 Eastern Australian Summer time

I sincerely hope this matter will be resolved in favor of dissemination of the enhanced and updated piece. I think it contains information that is quite valuable to a worldwide audience of clinicians, IT vendors and patients.

I also note that those who aim to suppress a document such as this in the age of informational computing, one product of which is the Internet, should be confined to using only the Commodore PET due to their technological and sociological ineptitude:

State-of-the-art computing for the would-be Health IT article police

-- SS

Addendum

Nov. 10, 2009, evening EST:

The essay in version 5 is once again available as Item 6 at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 .

-- SS

Is Someone at Jefferson Regional Medical Center Lying About EHR Safety?

2009-11-05T12:35:00.013-05:00

This curious story appeared about apparent clinician health IT safety concerns at Jefferson Regional Medical Center near Pittsburgh:

Switch to electronic records alarms Jefferson Regional physicians

By Walter F. Roche Jr.
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, October 30, 2009

Jefferson Regional Medical Center's attempts to convert to electronic medical records have some doctors concerned about patient safety.

In a memo issued this month, the hospital's Health Information Technology Committee announced the 373-bed facility in Jefferson Hills would revert to printed versions of patients' consultant reports "due to patient safety concerns from the majority of physicians."

Jefferson executives downplayed the memo and said they found no evidence that patient safety has been impacted, arguing a small group of physicians expressed concerns and not a majority, as the memo claimed.

"It was a very small number that were concerned. It wasn't the majority," said Dr. Richard F. Collins, Jefferson's vice president for medical affairs. "To this point, we haven't identified any issue of patient safety."

Now, one or the other must be true. Either a majority of physicians expressed concerns, or a small number did. Both cannot be true. Assuming the account in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review is accurate, someone is lying.

I should point out that the numbers ultimately do not matter - patient safety issues should never be determined via a headcount, and in fact hospital governance obligations under the Joint Commission and their own fiduciary responsibilities mandate the utmost conservatism and due diligence on safety concerns.

Perhaps the executives did find "no evidence" of safety issues. Regardless, I raise the following questions:

How was such a study performed, how were physicians and other clinicians involved in the study, and was it a rigorous study using validated methodologies, or cursory?

Who is most motivated to find an HIT system "safe", the HIT Committee and clinicians, or the administration?

I have served on HIT Committees; led them, in fact. Those committees "have the pulse" of clinician sentiment, even when they do not conduct formal surveys. In hospitals, the walls have ears, and the clinicians on HIT Committees understand what their colleagues are feeling - usually via direct and sometimes confrontational conversations.

HIT Committees charged with making HIT successful do not generally pull back from HIT projects without very good reason.

On the other hand, hospital executives who have signed off on investments of millions or tens of millions of dollars in IT investments do have a strong motive to ensure all goes well - either in reality or in the narrative they proffer.

This is especially true when conflicts of interest exist.

According to [VP for Medical Affairs] Collins and James Witenske, Jefferson's chief information officer, the transition [to EHR] began about a year ago and was completed in May. The hospital uses a system developed by Siemens, Collins said. He declined to disclose the cost.

I find this an interesting finding. After a short Google search, the following appeared:

Western Pennsylvania Hospital News
20 Years of Hospital Information Technology
by John Fries
(December 2005)

... James Witenske is chief information officer at Jefferson Regional Medical Center, having left Arthur Andersen four years ago to accept the position. Before working at the Big Eight firm, he served as chief information officer at UPMC Health System.
At Jefferson, IT takes place a bit differently that at other healthcare institutions. Where most hospitals have an IT department with staff, Witenske works almost exclusively with outside experts, one of whom is Ron Forys, a Siemens site executive who is based at Jefferson. It’s a complementary relationship – Witenske’s role is strategic and Forys’ is operational. Both are longtime technology professionals who have seen huge changes take place during the past two decades.

The hospital had/has its own vendor representative in a front line role, and apparently shied away from having its own IT staff. A person who comes from a consulting firm uses consultants whose loyalty is to the vendor, not the hospital, one of them as his operations guy.

This raises a number of questions:

Who paid/pays the Siemens Site Executive? The hospital, the vendor, or both?
Who did/does the Site Executive report to?
Did/does not the Site Executive have a conflict of interest with regard to physician opposition to the vendor's system?
What was/is the financial relationship between hospital executive leadership and the Site Executive? Between hospital executive leadership and the vendor?

These type of arrangements do raise my eyebrows, and the discrepancy between the HIT Committee's memo and the hospital executive's account, both of which cannot be true, could certainly be a symptom of conflicts of interest.

I have noted that a Congressional investigation of the health IT industry is now underway. This would not be a good time for hospital governance to downplay physician concerns about HIT, overruling their own HIT committee. For if a patient is injured or dies as a result of physician HIT concerns that were ignored, the executives could likely find themselves in a very unpleasant situation - and not just from malpractice attorneys.

Collins and other hospital officials who support the conversion say that once adopted and accepted, electronic records will increase patient safety and efficiency, and eliminate "piles of paper."

He apparently forgot the word "perfected." HIT in an experimental medical device. This VP for Medical Affairs makes no mention of the unintended consequences of poorly designed or implemented HIT. He either doesn't know about them (i.e., is dyscompetent regarding HIT) or is suffering the syndrome of inappropriate overconfidence in computers in the face of what seems like his own staff's concerns.

This is typical of the Wild West environment of Health IT.

-- SS

2009 a Pivotal Year in Healthcare IT

2009-11-04T10:07:00.013-05:00

2009 is proving to be a pivotal year in healthcare IT. Recent authoritative articles and reports on health IT problems largely validate the issues presented at this blog and others focusing on health IT issues, and at my academic website on HIT difficulties started over a decade ago, in 1998, freely available to the industry.

These articles and reports have ultimately led to a U.S. Senate investigation of the healthcare IT industry initiated in Oct. 2009 (link below).

2009 may be the year that healthcare IT vendors will finally begin to understand that not lending credence to decades of teachings from Medical Informatics professionals on healthcare IT design, implementation, lifecycle support, involvement of end users, and sales and marketing has been harmful to their businesses and to their investors. Instead, the commercial health IT companies took a simplistic management information systems-based approach to building medical devices in an incomparably complex environment they did not -- or did not care to – understand.

These devices are, in fact, virtual medical devices that happen to reside on a computer, not business computing systems that happen to be used by clinicians. These medical devices are soon to undergo regulation as such in the EU (pdf report from the Swedish Medical Products Agency here), Canada, the U.S. and other countries as well.

The teachings of Medical Informatics about such devices have been documented in the extensive literature of Medical Informatics. For example, the book “A History of Medical Informatics in the United States, 1950 to 1990” by informatics pioneer Morris F. Collen (published in 1995) explicitly demonstrates the progression of the field and the wisdom of the pioneers dating back to the 1950’s, as in the bons mots here.

The 2009 articles and reports below demonstrate numerous undesirable outcomes of the management information systems approach to development and implementation of virtual clinical devices:

The Joint Commission’s “Sentinel Event Alert on Healthcare IT” is here.

The U.S. National Research Council’s "Current Approaches to U.S. Health Care Information Technology are Insufficient" and link to a full report on an investigation of healthcare IT lack of progress is here.

The UK Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program is here.

The Washington Post’s article on the influential HIT vendor lobby “The Machinery Behind Healthcare Reform” is here.

Hoffman and Podgurski’s paper from Case Western entitled “e-Health Hazards: Provider Liability and Electronic Health Record Systems” on EHR medical and legal risks is here.

My commentary on the May 2009 AMIA workshop report on healthcare IT failure with free PDF is available here.

My commentary on a sentinel Mar. 2009 JAMA article by University of Pennsylvania researchers Ross Koppel and David Kreda “Health Care Information Technology Vendors' Hold Harmless Clause: Implications for Patients and Clinicians” on unsafe contract terms demanded by healthcare IT, and the violations of Joint Commission safety standards and fiduciary responsibilities committed by hospital governance personnel who agree to such terms, is here.

A link to the Oct. 25, 2009 Washington Post article “Electronic medical records not seen as a cure-all” and my commentary are here.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Oct. 16, 2009 letter to major healthcare IT vendors from Senator Charles E. Grassley (ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance) initiating a Senate investigation of corporate practices is here (PDF).

I have used this medieval illustration in a prior post on these pages, but sadly in this case it is probably even more highly appropriate:

"Margaritas ante Porcos" - click to enlarge

Not to be gratuitously impolite, but hard truths are often an unpleasant medicine, especially when ignoring those truths results in adverse consequences to patients and their caregivers.

-- SS

Did a Yakuza Boss Pay "A Million Dollars for One Liver?"

2009-11-02T15:52:00.000-05:00

One of the more bizarre stories to appear on Health Care Renewal just resurfaced. To summarize, in June, 2008, we posted about the strange case of four Japanese men, allegedly affiliated with Yakuza criminal organizations, who received liver transplants from the UCLA Medical Center, apparently with some alacrity. All likely paid full list prices for their procedures, and two later donated $100,000 each to the medical center. The case raised concerns by several notables (including Senator Charles Grassley, and Professor Arthur Caplan) about the integrity of the transplant system. Presumably these concerns were based on suspicions that the four may have received a higher priority than others on the list. More concerns should have been raised after it was revealed that shadowy characters threatened a reporter who started to investigate the case in Japan, and the reporter's family (see post here). Later, the Chancellor for Medical Sciences and Dean of the David Geffen School of Medicine's public response to the case side-stepped all the important concerns while deploying a series of logical fallacies (see post here).

Then, despite all the colorful details and ethical concerns presented by this story, it faded from view for a year and a half.

Last night, the US investigative reporting television show "60 Minutes" aired a follow-up on the Yakuza transplants, following closely on the publication of a book, Tokyo Vice, by Jake Adelstein, the reporter who first broke the story.

The web-based version of the 60 Minutes story reprised the main points, but added emphasis to a few of interest to Health Care Renewal.

First, the 60 Minutes piece raised suspicions that the Yakuza members paid a premium to jump the UCLA liver transplant priority list:

Getting into the U.S. was one thing, but getting a liver transplant at a leading American medical center like UCLA was something else altogether.

'What's the average waiting time for someone in California waiting for a liver transplant?' [CBS correspondent Lara] Logan asked California attorney Larry Eisenberg.

'It's probably realistically three years. And it could be much longer,' he replied.

Not for Tadamasa Goto, who got a liver in just six weeks. Eisenberg finds that surprising, especially since Goto was number 80 on the waiting list.

'It should not be possible that an unsavory character from out of the country, with ties to organized crime, comes into the United States and gets a priority and obtains a transplant,' Eisenberg said.

Two families, Eisenberg's clients, both lost loved ones waiting for livers at another transplant center in the same area: Salvador Ceja was number two on the waiting list; John Rader was number five.

'Do you think, for one second, that this was legitimate? That they stood in line and waited just like your husband did?' Logan asked Rader's widow Cheryl.

'Absolutely not,' she replied. 'No. Because nobody gets a liver that quickly.'

'I think they were playing God,' Yolanda Carballo, Ceja's stepdaughter, added. 'Now, I think they were picking and choosing who they wanted to give a liver to.'

'So, in your minds, what was this about?' Logan asked.

'Money,' Rader said. 'Spoke loud and clear. And they listened.'

'That's what it was all about. Money,' Carballo agreed.

Three of Goto's Yakuza cronies also got liver transplants at UCLA. For them, money was no object. UCLA says each of their transplants cost about $400,000 dollars; the Yakuza all paid cash.

The hospital also acknowledged Goto and another Yakuza each made $100,000 donations to the transplant center.

Adelstein says Goto paid even more. 'According to police documents and sources, a million dollars for Goto. A million dollars,' he told Logan.

'A million dollars for one liver?' she asked.

'A million dollars for one liver,' Adelstein said.

Second, 60 Minutes emphasized the risk Mr Adelstein faced after he drew attention to the story of the Yakuza liver transplants at UCLA:

Tadamasa Goto returned to his life of crime as a Yakuza godfather and it all stayed hidden until Adelstein was tipped off. It took him years to piece together the details for a newspaper story. Then, when word got out that Adelstein knew, the Yakuza tried to buy his silence, offering him half a million dollars.

Asked if he was tempted by the cash offer, Adelstein said, 'Of course I'm tempted. You know? When someone offers you half a million dollars not to write something, but then again, you know I don't want to be owned by organized crime the rest of my life.'

Adelstein wrote the story for 'The Washington Post' and it eventually made its way back to Japan. The news infuriated the Yakuza bosses. For Goto, it was a humiliating blow from which he would never recover.

'I heard from someone very close to him that as he was leaving and getting in his car he said, 'That goddamn American Jew reporter, I wanna kill him,'' Adelstein said.

Japanese and U.S. law enforcement agents took Goto's threat seriously.

Adelstein now lives alone, under Tokyo police protection; his wife and children are in hiding.

'Are you concerned that there is an American citizen here whose life is at risk?' Logan asked the U.S. Embassy's Mike Cox.

'Very much so. I mean, we think the Japanese police are doing what they can to make sure that no harm comes to Mr. Adelstein. I mean, we certainly don't want to see anything happen to him,' Cox said.

'What do you have to do in your daily life to stay alive?' Logan asked Adelstein.

'You have to keep your rooms shuttered, because you don't want a sniper to pick you off across from somebody’s house,' he said.

Asked if he lives in darkness, Adelstein said, 'When I'm up in my room typing, yes. All the rooms are shuttered. You gotta be very careful on rainy days. Because when Yakuza take people out, they like to do it on rainy days, because fewer people are on the streets and the rain washes away trace evidence.'

Even in disgrace, Tadamasa Goto still has a small army of loyal soldiers and a hit out on Jake Adelstein. The Yakuza say he will never be safe.

'When someone does something that causes them (Yakuza) to lose face, they will use any means possible, legal or illegal, to crush the person who has gotten in their way, who has humiliated them,' the disguised Yakuza boss told Logan.

Finally, 60 Minutes found that the UCLA Medical Center continued to be uncooperative, cloaking its refusal to categorically refute allegations that it sold a liver for a million dollars in concerns with patient confidentiality:

Asked if UCLA knew who these people were, Adelstein said, 'When you see guys with lots of tattoos, missing fingers, wouldn't it occur to you, like, 'Oh, this guy is a gangster.' I can't believe they didn't know.'

Attorney Eisenberg says transplant rules require extensive background checks on every patient. Yet, UCLA insisted to federal investigators they had 'no knowledge' that Goto or his cronies had ties to Japanese organized crime.

UCLA declined all of 60 Minutes' requests for interviews. The only thing the medical center will say on the record is that their program has been reviewed and found to be in 'total compliance' with liver transplant rules.

The hospital told us, 'state and federal patient confidentiality laws prohibit UCLA from responding to the…issues raised by 60 Minutes.'

'In my opinion, the medical center has a moral and ethical obligation to determine the source of those funds,' Eisenberg said.

'A moral and ethical obligation, but apparently no legal obligation?' Logan asked.

'Well, it's not addressed in the rules specifically,' Eisenberg said

As I wrote in my first post on this case, you just can't make this stuff up...

However, the colorfulness of the case should not distract from its very serious implications. We have written a lot in this blog about the anechoic effect, how cases with important implications about ethics, governance and leadership in health care often fail to attract the attention they deserve. We have opined that academics and professionals have realized that it is simply "not done" to discuss cases which might offend the powerful leaders of health care organizations. We have written about whistle-blowers who have lost jobs or been theatened with lawsuits. But in this case, the journalist who wrote about the case allegedly has received death threats and lives in hiding under police protection. This may be the most serious case of the anechoic effect known.

Furthermore, we have written a lot in this blog about how leaders of health care organizations ought to uphold their organizations' mission and the core values to which physicians and other health care professionals have sworn devotion. The continued disinclination of UCLA leadership to respond to charges that its medical center accepted $1 million to put Japanese gangsters at the head of the liver transplant list may reflect fear of gangsters who also allegedly threatened the life of the journalist who reported the case. But by failing to rebut such charges, the leadership leaves the impression that they cannot claim to be better than the moral equivalents of gangsters. Institutions that aspire to join "the ranks of the nations [sic] elite medical schools" ought also to aspire to have leaders that have better ethics than Yakuza bosses.

Transparency International has suggested that health care corruption is a global scourge that costs lives. Serious health care reform cannot ignore health care corruption as a cause of excess costs, denied access, and poor quality. Health care organizations ought to be held to a higher standard of ethics, and be less prone to corruption than, for example, garbage hauling firms. Health care organizations ought to subscribe to rigorous codes of ethics, impartially enforced, which apply to all within the organizations, including top leaders. While the accused need to be afforded due process, whistle-blowers must also be protected. In my humble opinion, true health care reform requires so confronting health care corruption. Maybe the leadership of the Gefen School of Medicine might want to consider setting an example in this regard.

Note: Jake Adelstein's book is available here, and it was reviewed by Reuters here and by the AP (via the Canadian Press) here.

A Bridge in Brooklyn and an Electronic Medical Records Bargain: Only One Hundred Nineteen Million Dollars Per User - Tolls Included

2009-11-02T10:28:00.016-05:00

One of the favorite debates people involved in IT seem to like to have is over the meaning of "failure" of IT projects.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: fail·ure
Pronunciation: \ˈfāl-yər\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of earlier failer, from Anglo-French, from Old French faillir to fail
Date: 1643
1 a : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action b (1) : a state of inability to perform a normal function <kidney failure> — compare heart failure (2) : an abrupt cessation of normal functioning c : a fracturing or giving way under stress
2 a : lack of success b : a failing in business : bankruptcy
3 a : a falling short : deficiency b : deterioration, decay
4 : one that has failed

The UK House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program is here.

Only the most stubborn would argue that this case and the latest data is not representative of a "failure" in the truest sense of that word:

Only 175 people using flagship NHS software, says minister
Lorenzo care records system is likely to be costing taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds per user per year

Written by Tom Young

Computing.co.uk, 30 Oct 2009

There are only 174 clinicians using Lorenzo patient software across the five early adopter trusts, according to Mike O'Brien, minister for the National Programme for IT (NPfIT).

Five Boroughs Partnership, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay, Hereford Hospitals and South Birmingham have only ever had 19 clinicians using the systems at the same time.

Lorenzo is one of two software packages being used to set up centralised electronic health records as part of the £12.7bn National Programme for IT. This part of the programme is already running four years late.

Lorenzo is being supplied by services company CSC to trusts in the north of England and by its developer iSoft directly to trusts in the south after Fujitsu was fired from the programme.

The other patient software package is Cerner Millennium, being supplied by BT in London and a handful of trusts in the south.

By Google:

£12,700,000,000 = USD $20,770,850,000

By my calculations, that works out to:

£72,571,429 or USD $118,690,571 per user of this software.

While a somewhat satirical and sardonic calculation, that's about 73 million pounds or 119 million dollars per user, after almost a decade of work.

What more can be said than "stunning?"

The information came from a parliamentary question tabled by Richard Bacon MP.

Last week in the Commons he said:

"I tabled a question yesterday about the number of hospital trusts where Lorenzo has been partially deployed, asking how many users — how many concurrent users — of Lorenzo there are.

"It is literally just a handful, which means that the cost per user is not what one would expect… the cost is going to be many hundreds of thousands — possibly even more than a million — pounds per user per year."

Bacon said there has not been a single deployment of Lorenzo in 2009 because these early adopter trusts were having such problems.

"The reason is that the handful of deployments attempted have been an absolute mess, causing chaos in the hospitals where they were tried," he said.

Operations of entire hospitals were disrupted by software. This represents unconsented IT experiments on human subjects gone massively awry. Whether the "chaos" caused anyone harm seems never to be stated.

Deployments of Cerner Millennium have also caused problems, with St Barts in London now facing fines of £400,000 a month for missing patient care targets as a result of problems with the system.

Bacon also points out that the recently signed contracts with BT to deploy Cerner Millennium at hospitals in the south require BT to be paid even if the hospitals refuse the systems – a possibility if they think they will not work.

I would suggest someone in the UK provide screen shots and/or a YouTube video of these systems in operation so others can understand how such results can occur. (Oh, wait: the vendor contracts probably prohibit that, the hospital executives having signed such contracts also having signed away their fiduciary responsibilities to patients and clinicians.)

... Junior Treasury minister Sarah McCarthy-Fry defended The NPfIT in the debate.

She said: "We all acknowledge that the NHS IT project is hugely ambitious [profoundly overambitious would perhaps be more accurate - ed.] and that it is essential that we get it right. [The Minister appears to be a master of the obvious - ed.] It is obvious to everybody that many challenges remain.

"We still believe that Cerner Millennium and Lorenzo will be able to support the NHS in the long term."

Right.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY for sale. Perhaps the UK teams responsible for this debacle would be interested. After all, the cost per user of the bridge would be remarkably low, far less than USD $118 million - and the users could even be made to pay a toll for each use:

For sale: a bridge in Brooklyn.

Perhaps in our own U.S. national health IT initiative, we'll come in at a lower cost per user than $118,690,571 - perhaps about $118,690,570.99 ?

After all, those Medical Informatics specialists act like know-it-alls about healthcare IT, and since domain-specific education and expertise are irrelevant in healthcare management, why should anyone listen to them?

-- SS

AstraZeneca Settles

2009-10-30T15:49:00.000-04:00

Here is the latest in the parade of legal settlements of cases of alleged wrong-doing by health care organizations. As reported by Duff Wilson in the New York Times,

The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca said Thursday that it had reached a $520 million agreement to settle two federal investigations and two whistle-blower lawsuits over the sale and marketing of its blockbuster psychiatric drug Seroquel.

One of the investigations related to 'selected physicians who participated in clinical trials involving Seroquel,' AstraZeneca disclosed in a government filing. The other case related to off-label promotion of the drug.

Seroquel was the top-selling antipsychotic drug in America. It had $17 billion in sales in the United States since 2004, according to IMS Health, a research firm.

Tony Jewell, a company spokesman, declined to be more specific about the physicians or clinical trials under investigation. He said the company was in final negotiations to settle the whistle-blower suits and reach a corporate integrity agreement with the Justice Department.

The name of the whistle-blowers and other details of the suits remained sealed in federal court. Stephen A. Sheller, a lawyer in Philadelphia for the whistle-blowers, and Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney in Philadelphia, both declined to comment.

Here we go again. As the Times article noted,

AstraZeneca, based in Britain, joins a list of drug makers that have paid billions to settle inquiries initiated by complaints from former company insiders.

Earlier this year, Eli Lilly & Company paid $1.4 billion over its marketing of Zyprexa, another antipsychotic drug. And Pfizer announced it would pay $2.3 billion, including a record $1.195 billion criminal fine, mostly over its painkiller Bextra, which has been withdrawn from the market.

Does anyone really still believe that integrity agreements, and settlements assessed against huge corporations deter such profitable bad behavior? A half a billion dollar one-time settlement is just a small cost of doing business for a company that sold $17 billion worth of the offending drug in the last five years. As in the case of many other previously announced settlements, it appears that nobody who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior that led to the settlement will suffer any sort of negative consequences.

We previously discussed allegations that AstraZeneca manipulated and suppressed clinical research, and organized deceptive marketing campaigns in support of Seroquel sales (here, and here). If we do not discourage such practices, they will continue to bias the clinical evidence making expensive drugs and devices seem more effective and less dangerous than they really are. Is it any wonder that we over-use and over-pay for these products? Anyone seriously interested in reforming health care to improve quality and access while moderating costs ought to pay attention to behavior that leads to such over-use and over-payment.

(However, there may be hope. Perhaps in the future there will be more effective deterrence. A recent indictment named not only the device company Stryker Biotech (a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation), but also its former CEO and three managers.)

An Alliance on Mental Illness or for Pharmaceutical Companies?

2009-10-30T15:21:00.001-04:00

A recent article by Gardner Harris in the New York Times focused on the financial links among health care corporations and not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy groups.

A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

Last spring, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine.

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private.

But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.

Even the group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.

However, he tried to downplay the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the Alliance.

'I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is pharmaceuticals,' Mr. Fitzpatrick said. 'It’s simply not true.'

Note the careful wording of this denial, though. He did not deny that most of what NAMI cares about is pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, the article suggested how cozy pharmaceutical companies and the Alliance's leadership have become.

The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington. Tickets were $300 each. Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliance’s board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.

'For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner at the highest level,' Dr. Feinstein said.

He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that 'now, more than ever, our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.'

Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have over the years given the mental health alliance — along with millions of dollars in donations — direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.

In a letter today to the NY Times, NAMI Executive Director Fitzpatrick tried again to correct "misimpressions."

First, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, has always disclosed corporate and foundation sources of revenue. Until this year, specific amounts remained private for competitive fund-raising reasons.

Second, your estimate that pharmaceutical companies account for three-quarters of “donations” has been misinterpreted as a share of NAMI’s total annual budget — which is actually about 50 percent.

Perusal of the 2008 NAMI Annual Report does include this impressive list of "Corporate Partners":

Abbott
Alexza Pharmaceuticals
Amazon
AstraZeneca
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Bristol-Myers Squibb
College of Psychiatric and Neurologic
Pharmacists
Corcept Therapeutics
Cyberonics
Delivery Agent, Inc.
Forest Laboratories
GEO Care
GoodSearch.com
The Health Central Network
Janssen Pharmaceutica
Eli Lilly and Company
Magellan Health Services
McNeil Pediatrics
Neuronetics
Novartis
Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer
PhRMA
RF Binder
Sanofi-Aventis
Shire
Solvay
Validus Pharmaceuticals
WellPoint
Wyeth
YTB Travel Network

The NAMI web-site now includes lists of specific corporate donations that individually exceeded $5000 since the beginning of 2009. So far this year, the biggest pharmaceutical corporate donors appear to be AstraZeneca ($350,000), Bristol-Myers-Squibb ($506,205), and Eli Lilly ($675,500).

Looking at the latest Form 990 filed on behalf of NAMI with the US Internal Revenue Service (available from GuideStar here) provides more interesting detail. (Keep in mind that the 2008 form covers July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008.)   This form listed the organization's total revenue as $13,788,288, and expenses as $12,796,205. These expenses included $1,785,060 (13.9%) for management and $1,520,637 (11.9% ) for fund-raising. The form listed eight NAMI executives who made more than $100,00 a year, including Mr Fitzpatrick ($210,685 total compensation).

So, in summary, it appears that corporate donations, mainly from a few large pharmaceutical companies, supply a substantial portion, (maybe half, if I read the letter by Mr Fitzpatrick correctly) of the annual budget of NAMI. About one-quarter of that budget is spent on administration and fund-raising, including six-figure salaries for at least eight executives.  So who do you expect would more easily get access to the $200K+/year NAMI Executive Director, an executive of a pharmaceutical firm that supplies more than $500,000 a year, or a NAMI member who pays $35 dues?

Here we have another example of a respected patient advocacy organization which gets a substantial portion of its revenue from (presumably the marketing departments of) a few large pharmaceutical companies. (See another example here.) Its well-paid executive director can at best bring himself to deny that the only purpose of the organization is to support pharmaceutical marketing and lobbying. It seems reasonable that for supplying half the budget, the pharmaceutical companies expect considerable help not only with marketing but also with advocacy of policies that favor their corporate goals.

As I have said before, I do not have a problem with pharmaceutical and other health care corporations marketing their products, and expressing their views on policy. I do have a problem with corporate marketing or policy advocacy is disguised as grass-roots, not-for-profit education and advocacy. If ostensibly not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy organizations like NAMI want to continue to accept corporate money, they should make it clear that they speak for their corporate donors as well as, and probably with priority over their members and patients with the diseases of interest.  Well-intentioned people who pay their dues, and/or make small contributions to NAMI to help the mentally ill might want to consider whether they are likely to have any influence compared to the individual pharmaceutical executives who oversee $500,000+ a year corporate donations.

ADDENDUM (2 November, 2009) - See also comments on the Furious Seasons blog.

Failing to Report Adverse Effects of Treatments

2009-10-28T16:55:00.005-04:00

We have frequently advocated the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to improve the care of individual patients, and to improve health care quality at a reasonable cost for populations. Evidence-based medicine is not just medicine based on some sort of evidence. As Dr David Sackett, and colleagues wrote [Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine; what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72. Link here. ]

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.

One can find other definitions of EBM, but nearly all emphasize that the approach is designed to appropriately apply results from the best clinical research, critically reviewed, to the individual patient, taking into account that patient's clinical characteristics and personal values.

When making decisions about treatments for individual patients, the EBM approach suggests using the best available evidence about possible benefits and harms of treatment, so that the treatment chosen is most likely to maximize benefits and minimize harms for the individual patient. The better the evidence about specific benefits and harms applicable to a particular patient, the greater will be the likelihood that a particular decision based on this evidence will result in the best possible outcomes for the patient.

A new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine focused on how articles report adverse effects found by clinical trials. [Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N et al. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1756-1761. Link here.] The results were not encouraging.

The investigators assessed 133 articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials published in 2006 in six English language journals with high impact factors, that is, the most prestigious journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine. They excluded trials with less common designs, such as randomized cross-over trials. The majority of trials (54.9%) had private, or private mixed with public funding.

The major results were:
15/133 (11.3%) did not report anything about adverse events
36/133 (27.1%) did not report information about the severity of adverse events
63/133 (47.4%) did not report how many patients had to withdraw from the trial due to adverse events
43/133 (32.3%) had major limitations in how they reported adverse events, e.g., reporting only the most common events (even though most trials do not enroll enough patients to detect important but uncommon events).

The authors concluded, "the reporting of harm remains inadequate."

An accompanying editorial [Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized controlled trials: neglected, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1737-1739. Link here] raised concerns about why the reporting of adverse events is so shoddy:

Perhaps conflicts of interest and marketing rather than science have shaped even the often accepted standard that randomized trials study primarily effectiveness, whereas information on harms from medical interventions can wait for case reports and nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized data are very helpful, but they have limitations, and many harms will remain long undetected if we just wait for spontaneous reporting and other nonrandomized research to reveal them. In an environment where effectiveness benefits are small and shrinking, the randomized trials agenda may need to reprogram its whole mission, including its reporting, toward better understanding of harms.

Pitrou and colleagues have added to our knowledge about the drawbacks of the evidence about treatments that is publicly available to physicians and patients when making decisions about treatment. Even reports of studies with the best designs (randomized controlled trials) in the best journals seem to omit important information about the harms of the treatments they test.

It appears that the majority of the reports that Pitrou and colleagues studied received "private" funding, presumably meaning most were funded by drug, biotechnology, or device companies and were likely meant to evaluate the sponsoring companies' products. However, note that this article did not analyze the relationship of funding source to the completeness of information about adverse effects.

Nonetheless, on Health Care Renewal we have discussed many cases in which research has been manipulated in favor of the vested interests of research sponsors (funders), or in which research unfavorable to their interests has been suppressed. Therefore, it seems plausible that sponsors' influence over how clinical trials are designed, implemented, analyzed and reported may reduce information about the adverse effects of their products reported in journal articles. Trials may be designed not to gather information about adverse events. Analyses of some adverse events, or some aspects of these events may not be performed, or if performed, not reported. The evidence from clinical research available to make treatment decisions consequently may exaggerate the ratios of certain drugs' and devices' benefits to their harms.

Patients may thus receive treatments which are more likely to hurt than to help them, and populations of patients may be overtreated. Impressions that treatments are safer than they actually are may allow their manufacturers to overprice them, so health care costs may rise.

The article by Pitrou and colleagues adds to concerns that we physicians may too often really be practicing pseudo-evidence based medicine when we think we are practicing evidence-based medicine. We cannot judiciously balance benefits and harms of treatments to make the best decisions for patients when evidence about harms is hidden. Clearly, as Ioannidis wrote, we need to "reprogram." However, what we need to reprogram is our current dependence on drug and device manufacturers to pay for (and hence de facto run) evaluations of their own products. If health care reformers really want to improve quality while controlling costs, this is the sort of reform they need to start considering.

NB - See also the comments by Merrill Goozner in the GoozNews blog.

Who Should Sponsor Comparative Effectiveness Research?

2009-10-26T14:34:00.004-04:00

We have tried to argue why comparative effectiveness research is a good idea. To cut and paste what I wrote in a previous post,

Physicians spend a lot of time trying to figure out the best treatments for particular patients' problems. Doing so is often hard. In many situations, there are many plausible treatments, but the trick is picking the one most likely to do the most good and least harm for a particular patient. Ideally, this is where evidence based medicine comes in. But the biggest problem with using the EBM approach is that often the best available evidence does not help much. In particular, for many clinical problems, and for many sorts of patients, no one has ever done a good quality study that compares the plausible treatments for those problems and those patients. When the only studies done compared individual treatments to placebos, and when even those were restricted to narrow patient populations unlike those patient usually seen in daily practice, physicians are left juggling oranges, tomatoes, and carburetors.
Comparative effectiveness studies are simply studies that compare plausible treatments that could be used for patients with particular problems, and which are designed to be generalizable to the sorts of patients usually seen in practice. As a physician, I welcome such studies, because they may provide very useful information that could help me select the optimal treatments for individual patients.

Because I believe that comparative effectiveness studies could be very useful to improve patient care, it upsets me to see this particular kind of clinical study get caught in political, ideological, and economic battles.

In particular, we have discussed a number of high profile attacks on comparative effectiveness research, which often have featured arguments based on logical fallacies. While some of the people making the attacks have assumed a conservative or libertarian ideological mantle, one wonders whether the attacks were more driven by personal financial interests. For example, see our blog posts here, here, here, and here. On the other hand, we discussed a clear-headed defense of comparative effectiveness research by a well-known economist most would regard as libertarian here.

Comparative effectiveness research has been discussed as an element of health care reform in the US. It turns out that the current version of the health care reform bill in the US Senate has a provision to create a Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute, which presumably would become the major organization which could sponsor comparative effectiveness research.

This institute, however, would not be a government agency (despite the name that makes it sound like it would be part of the National Institutes of Health). Moreover, here is a description of the Board of Governors who would run the institute from the current version of the bill :

BOARD OF GOVERNORS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Institute shall have a Board of Governors, which shall consist of 15 members appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this section, as follows:
(A) 3 members representing patients and health care consumers.
(B) 3 members representing practicing physicians, including surgeons.
(C) 3 members representing private payers, of whom at least 1 member shall represent health insurance issuers and at least 1 member shall represent employers who self-insure employee benefits.
(D) 3 members representing pharmaceutical, device, and diagnostic manufacturers or developers.
(E) 1 member representing nonprofit organizations involved in health services research.
(F) 1 member representing organizations that focus on quality measurement and improvement or decision support.
(G) 1 member representing independent health services researchers.

Thus, only 3/15 members of the governing board would represent the patients who ultimately reap the benefits or suffer the harms produced by medical diagnosis and treatment. Further, 6/15 members represent for-profit corporations which stand to make more or less money depending on how particular comparative effectiveness studies come out. Also, 3/15 members would be physicians, some of who may get paid more to deliver particular treatments (e.g., procedures) than others (e.g., providing advice about diet and exercise).

We often discuss how clinical research sponsored by organizations with vested interest in the research turning out to favor their products or services may be manipulated to favor these interests, and sometimes suppressed if it does not. In the US, there are few unconflicted sources of sparse funds to support comparative effectiveness research. (The most significant current source is the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. For full disclosure, I have been an ad hoc reviewer of grants for that agency.)

The current draft of legislation would create the largest potential sponsor for comparative effectiveness research, but would make that organization report to representatives of for-profit companies whose profits may be affected by the results of such research. In my humble opinion, this is not much of an advance. Comparative effectiveness research controlled by corporations that stand to profit or lose depending on its results will forever be suspect.

If the government is going to support comparative effectiveness research, it ought to make sure such research is not run by people with vested interests in the outcomes coming out a certain way. I may be biased myself, but why not let the research be sponsored by AHRQ, an agency with relevant experience and no axe to grind vis a vis any particular product or service?

Clinic's medical files vanish

2009-10-26T00:20:00.006-04:00

At "Data Malpractice on T-Mobile Sidekick: But Don't Worry, Your Medical Data is Safe", on Oct. 16 I wrote:

One of the promises made about healthcare IT is that your medical data is "safer" in electronic form than in paper form. The Hurricane Katrina example of paper records being destroyed is often used as a poster example of the dangers of paper records.

However, the risk of electronic storage of information, especially the talk of national EMR's stored on the "cloud" (an amorphous term meaning distributed storage "out there" whose physical sites and boundaries are supposedly irrelevant from the user's perspective) has also been under-reported.

Personal customer data had been "lost" from many of T-Mobile USA's Sidekick devices due to a computer malfunction, although the data was apparently recovered eventually, apparently through luck rather than good engineering.

I expressed concern that such mishaps could affect clinical IT. I did not have to wait long for such a case to appear. Less than one week.

Below is a story of a Canadian clinic that lost two years of electronic health records:

Clinic's medical files vanish
By Ryan Cormier, Edmonton Journal
October 21, 2009
During a recent investigation into whether a patient's confidentiality had been breached at the Fairview Medical Clinic, an investigator asked for a log of who had accessed the complainant's file. When the clinic responded that it had automated his records in 2004 but only had files from 2006 on, alarm bells rang.
"That raised a lot of questions," said Leahann McElveen, an investigator with the office of the information and privacy commissioner.
The clinic had permanently lost two years worth of health files that include patient information on visits, prescriptions, lab reports, doctor's notes and other information. The loss happened when the clinic switched from one electronic medical records system to another.
"They were two similar systems intended to do the same thing," McElveen said. "However, they weren't coded the same way behind the scenes. It's not that the records fall into the wrong hands, they just don't exist anymore."

*POOF*.

Deinstallation of one system in favor of another is not uncommon. EHR data may become unavailable due to lack of data portability and the expense of data migration, or in this case apparently due to preventable technical problems.

It is essential for clinical IT users to have robust disaster recovery and business continuity solutions, and take great care when performing actions that can lose large amounts of data very fast. This adds to clinical IT cost, and a concern is that some users might skimp on these capabilities.

This must be discouraged.

(To the reader: do you back up your own PC or Mac reliably?)

-- SS

Washington Post Article: Electronic medical records not seen as a cure-all

2009-10-25T13:07:00.030-04:00

Regarding the very well done Sunday Oct. 25, 2009 story in the Washington Post "Electronic medical records not seen as a cure-all" by staff writer Alexi Mostrous - signup may be required for access - I have several observations.

(Not including the observation that Mr. Mostrous probably deserves an award for being the first major newspaper reporter to broach this topic in a serious and balanced manner.)

First, I believe healthcare IT can live up to all the predictions made about its benefits - but only if done well. There is massive complexity behind those two words "done well", and that is HIT's key stumbling block in 2009. I believe we are only in the adolescent stage of knowing how to "do health IT well."

Second, I should point out that the intended consequences of health IT include, among many other things, the following "hiding in plain sight" (i.e., not often verbalized) intended consequences:

The improvement of medicine ... in the context of protection of patient rights established over centuries of development of modern medicine.

The improvement of IT itself through cross disciplinary collaboration between IT and medicine, of the science of IT (computer science), the social aspects of computerization ("sociotechnical issues"), and improvement of the our understanding of the intersection of medicine and computers.

Instead, we largely have the opposite. Patients' rights are trampled, and hostility and territoriality has arisen between clinicians (including medical informaticists) and IT, groups that rarely if ever interacted in hospitals ten or twenty years ago.

Of concern, when scientific study sections evaluate NIH grant proposals calling for testing of new IT that involves patients, patient protections and informed consent processes are a paramount concern since such activities are considered research. Yet, in implementing large clinical IT system in a hospital with new features, there are no formal regulations, and I'm not sure there's even IRB involvement in most cases. Patients do not get the chance to give informed consent to the use of these IT devices mediating their care. Why the difference?

The unintended results of computerization efforts have also included suppression of research on sociotechnical issues and on informatics, which must include study of the downsides of HIT, and of the failures in addition to the study of the successes. That is scientific fact - there is no room for debate, no room for spin on the need for careful study of the downsides of any mission critical domain. One would think there to be a vibrant literature on these issues, Yet searches on massive biomedical databases such as PubMed on, say, "cerner electronic health record" (or other vendors as well) are disappointing to say the least. Further, my own website on HIT difficulties remains nearly unique (PPT) after ten years online. That is not bragging; it is a disturbing finding to me - symptomatic of an industry that somehow has managed to avoid serious scrutiny.

In a field with downsides, there are:

1) those who know about the problems but fail to speak,
2) those who see the problems but fail to act, and
3) those who see, know and speak/write/research the problems.

That said, now on to the Washington Post article:

... bipartisan enthusiasm has obscured questions about the effectiveness of health information technology products, critics say. Interviews with more than two dozen doctors, academics, patients and computer programmers suggest that computer systems can increase errors, add hours to doctors' workloads and compromise patient care.

I would include the bipartisan enthusiasm under the subject header of "irrational exuberance", which itself falls under the header of "lack of domain knowledge." That itself is a consequence of both failure to study the issues, and suppression of those issues by those with an interest in doing so.

health IT's effectiveness is unclear.

The literature is indeed conflicting, and the need for rigorous scientific study has never been more essential considering the commitment of tens of billions of dollars towards health IT. The time for story telling, marketing based on opinion, name calling, leap-of-faith extrapolations of light year dimensions, and other forms of pseudoscience and non-science are over. The time for objective study is now.

The Senate Finance Committee has amassed a thick file of testimony alleging serious computer flaws from doctors, patients and engineers unhappy with current systems.

Being the ranking member of that committee, Sen. Grassley has a fiduciary responsibility to protect Medicare and Medicaid patients (and one might argue, to protect all patients since those programs often serve as models for private insurers). In that regard, the investigation he has initiated is part of his responsibility as a ranking member of Congress. Politics aside (and there are those who will resort to ad hominem "political witch hunt" arguments), he would have been negligent if he had not initiated an inquiry.

Sen. Grassley has taken on the pharma industry and the government's Food and Drug Administration itself, such as in this recent article "FDA fails to follow up on unproven drugs" where he concluded from a GAO study he ordered that "FDA has fallen far short of where it should be for patient safety." He seems quite serious about medical safety.

If only others in Congress had done their job similarly regarding national finance, we might now not be in the worst economic crisis since '29 with many major industries failing.

David Blumenthal, the head of health technology at the Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledged that the systems had flaws. "But the critical question is whether, on balance, care is better than before," he said. "I think the answer is yes."

This sounds uncomfortably like how a pharmaceutical company might respond to doubts about drug effectiveness and safety. In reality it's really irrelevant what he "thinks." Where's the data? Is this a political statement, a personal belief, or a statement backed up by scientific fact that is not cast into doubt by other research results? Our own National Research Council, Joint Commission, and other international organizations have written about their doubts and concerns about HIT [as that IT is designed and implemented in 2009]. If there is rigorous, systematic research weighing pro's and con's to back this assertion, I wish it would be published.

For his statement is really saying "we don't really know how many systems have flaws, we know some do, and we don't really know the full extent of the impact of those flaws, but because there can be some benefits, let's spend $50+ billion before we know the extent of the problems and fix them." I point out research from Harvard forty years ago, when Harvard informatics pioneer Dr. Octo Barnett published the "Ten Commandments of HIT." Two of those commandments were:

... 8. Thou shall be concerned with realities of the cost and projected benefit of the computer system [i.e., ROI - ed.]

10. Be optimistic about the future, supportive of good work that is being done, passionate in your commitment, but always guided by a fundamental skepticism.

The full set is in this post. Somewhere in the past 40 years, the rigorous ROI evaluations (which also must include systematic evaluations of risk, as any businessperson knows) and the fundamental skepticism seem to have gotten lost.

Over the next two months, Blumenthal will finalize the definition of "meaningful use," the standard that hospitals and physicians will have to reach before qualifying for health IT stimulus funds.

This is an example of putting the cart before the horse, and is a semantically-based, self contained logical fallacy of sorts. If a health IT system is harmful, the term "meaningful use" is itself Orwellian. If we don't know if HIT is beneficial, or have doubts, then such as term presupposes that health IT is inherently beneficial. A better term would have been "good faith use" - use based on the faith or hope that health IT will have an overall positive effect. The term "meaningful use" jumps the gun and is more a political slogan than a "meaningful term."

"If you look at other high-risk industries, like drug regulation or aviation, there's a requirement to report problems," said David C. Classen, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Utah who recently completed a study on health IT installations.

This is obvious, the reasons for it are obvious, and the reasons why health IT needs a requirement for problems reporting (one aspect of post-marketing surveillance, the "Phase IV" study as it is known in pharma) is obvious. Yet in 2009, no such requirement exists (see my post "Our Policy Is To Always Have Unabashed Faith In The Computer" for more on why we need reporting requirements.) Why do these requirements simply not exist in HIT?

"It's been a complete nightmare," said Steve Chabala, an emergency room physician at St. Mary Mercy Hospital in Livonia, Mich., which switched to electronic records three years ago. "I can't see my patients because I'm at a screen entering data." Last year, his department found that physicians spent nearly five of every 10 hours on a computer, he said. "I sit down and log on to a computer 60 times every shift. Physician productivity and satisfaction have fallen off a cliff."

The industry in the past has called such physicians "luddites", "resistant to change", "stubborn" etc. However, argumentum ad hominem is a fallacious mode of argument that has no place in a scientific field such as biomedicine. There also seems to be quite a lot of such concerns expressed by a large number of physicians, nurses, etc., and dismissing their concerns with a wave of the hand is cavalier in the extreme - again, these are first principles, without room for argument or debate. Let's study the issues rigorously and scientifically before resorting to ad hominem.

Other doctors spoke of cluttered screens, unresponsive vendors and illogical displays. "It's a huge safety issue," said Christine Sinsky, an internist in Dubuque, Iowa, whose practice implemented electronic records six years ago.

See my eight part series on mission hostile clinical IT here for examples of what Dr. Sinsky is referring to.

She emphasized that electronic records have improved her practice. "We wouldn't want to go back," she said. "But EHRs are still in need of significant improvement."

Yes, not cancellation, but improvement. And, quite importantly, before tens of billions of dollars are spent. Hospitals and physician offices are not an IT development laboratory, since the users of these facilities (patients) have very special rights and the clinicians, very special obligations and responsibilities.

Legal experts say it is impossible to know how often health IT mishaps occur. Electronic medical records are not classified as medical devices, so hospitals are not required to report problems.

That after decades of HIT development, sales and implementation we cannot know with certainty how often mishaps occur is, quite simply, a scandal of major proportions. Quoting an old House of God law, #10: "if you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever." Another applicable aphorism seen on another discussion board: "you can only be so negligent or craven before the only remaining rationale is that you intended the result."

"Doctors who report problems can lose their jobs," Hoffman said.

I've taken risks with my own career in criticizing health IT, as have my colleagues. Hoffman is not exaggerating.

"Hospitals don't have any incentive to do so [speak out about problems with HIT] and may be in breach of contract if they do."

Imagine the outcry if the same prevailed regarding drugs or medical devices. The cemeteries would be lined with people whose epitaph could read "we bury our mistakes."

While orange-shirted vendor employees "ran around with no idea how to work their own equipment," the internist said, doctors struggled to keep chronically ill patients alive. "I didn't go through all my training to have my ability to take care of patients destroyed by devices that are an impediment to medical care."

This gets to issues I first raised in my website on HIT difficulties: who are these IT personnel, and what are their qualifications, exactly, to be working in mission critical medical environments? How is their competence evaluated?

I think these are questions that need to be answered.

-- SS

Washington Post: EMR's No Cure-All; Sen. Grassley Sends Letter of Inquiry to health IT vendors

2009-10-24T18:47:00.006-04:00

Senator Grassley has sent a letter out to ten major health IT vendors seeking information on health IT problems and flaws. The letter can be retrieved from this link (PDF) at the Washington Post. Read the whole thing.

It is linked via a Washington Post story "Electronic medical records not a cure-all", Sunday Oct. 25, 2009, by staff writer Alexi Mostrous. The WaPo article itself seems to require registration. I will comment on the article in future posts.

Addendum 10/25: I have now commented on the article here.

-- SS

"Organisational Ethics Policies; A Primer"

2009-10-23T16:38:00.004-04:00

I regret that it took me so long to find an essay on "Organisational Ethics Policies" by Howard Whitton, available from the European U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center. While it was written with international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who "administer aid programs" in mind, it seems applicable to all kinds of NGOs and not-for-profit organizations, including those in health care. In the US, most medical schools and their parent universities, most hospitals and academic medical centers, essentially all medical societies and disease advocacy groups, and some insurance companies and managed care organizations are not-for-profit.

The main points of the paper are its summaries of the basic elements of "effective ethics policies."

First, such a policy

- must first have unequivocal authority and the endorsement of boards and senior management, and must be:
o founded on the organisation’s core values, mandate, and ethical principle
o developed in consultation with those affected by it
o realistically achievable
o written in plain language, coherent with other policies, and easily available
o clearly understood by staff, and by other stakeholders
o consistent with the organisation’s policies on rewards and sanctions
o regularly reviewed and evaluated with all stakeholders
o universally applied, and transparently enforced.

The main content areas might include such "major areas of ethical risk" as:

o financial management and accountability standards
o internal and external audit processes
o professional ethics, conduct, and conflict of interest standards
o fair treatment rules for staff and clients
o processes for the prevention of fraud and other abuse of trust
o integrity mechanisms governing proper decision-making
o provision of transparent information to stakeholders
o complaints and whistleblower disclosure processes
o principled policy dispute processes
o transparent and objective evaluation mechanisms.

So, specific policies should include the following functional elements:

o a code of conduct/ethics based on the organisation’s core values
o professional practice standards interpreting the code’s principles
o procedures for managing conflict of interest situations (including the registration of relevant interests and assets of decision makers)
o procedures for offering and accepting gifts and business courtesies
o criteria for the proper use of organisational assets and authority
o prohibition of harassment and discrimination in the workplace
o criteria for protected reporting of unethical or illegal behaviour
o rights of clients to obtain service, including complaint procedures for failure to meet standards
o obligations for accountability and transparency,and information provision
o standards for dealing with confidential and privileged information
o constraints on ancillary and post-separation employment
o standards for providing reasons for administrative decisions.

Also the policies should include:

• A commitment to training staff in the full range of ethics-related activities. Training will improve personal awareness and strengthen the ability to define and manage improper conduct, whether by co-workers, managers, or external stakeholders.
The range of training themes should include the organisation’s integrity system, specific anticorruption measures, harassment-free workplaces, non-discrimination principles, financial management and audit, integrity in procurement practices, donor relations, personal and institutional conflict of interest, accountability, responsibility, procedural fairness, and strategic problem-solving.

• Policies and procedures for regular management reporting to boards and executives, in particular to enable monitoring of matters which may be of particular concern from time to time.

• Independent, external scrutiny of policies provide an important resource for boards and executives for ensuring that espoused core values and actual behaviours are aligned, and to identify areas of policy and management practice requiring
improvement.

• Policies and procedures for protected reporting of improper conduct, both to enhance worker and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of an organisation, and to provide avenues for early detection of inappropriate behaviour. Genuine
whistleblowing must be effectively endorsed, and effectively protected, to ensure the organisation’s credibility.

• Procedures for the sanctioning of improper conduct and failure to meet relevant standards by staff, structured so as to enhance management’s capacity to deal effectively with ethical issues in the workplace.

Such policies cannot be considered ethical panaceas, but in my humble opinion (and based, I believe, on at least a little cognitive psychology), visible, reasonable, clear ethics policies could reduce the sort of bad behavior that Health Care Renewal often discusses on the part of leaders of major health care not-for-profit organizations and NGOs.

So, those of you who work for or are otherwise affiliated with a not-for-profit university, medical school, hospital, academic medical center, medical organization, disease advocacy organization, or insurance company/ managed care organization might want to go through the exercise of answering these questions:
1 - Does your organization have anything that resembles an ethics policy?
2 - If so, which of the characteristics listed above does it have?
3 - Which of the content areas listed above does it include?
4 - Which of the functional and additional elements listed above does it include?

If much is missing, is there an obvious reason for what was omitted? If the policy seems poorly characterized or incomplete, why should it not be improved? Would you feel comfortable suggesting improvements? If not, why not, and what does that say about the organization?

Academic Freedom Curtailed: Censorship Down Under On EHR's for the Emergency Department?

2009-10-23T11:18:00.046-04:00

In a stunning development:

The essay on Emergency Department electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney, that I referenced in my posts "The Story of the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck" and "NSW Nightmare and Overuse of Computers" appears to have been censored. This apparently occurred at the level of the the government.

The essay was available as item 6 at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 . Attempts to download now provide a message "This document is not currently available." I do not know if the vendor was involved.

(A copy of vers. 3 of Professor Patrick's report is still available here in PDF; it was a work in progress when it was pulled.) [Oct. 24 - see addendum below - ed.]

This appears to be an overt example of suppression of academic freedom that I believe should receive widespread attention, most especially if there is retaliation of any kind against the professor.

I also believe censorship of a document such as this could escalate to a human rights issue regarding what appears to be deliberate censorship of critical information about IT systems that could possibly be putting large numbers of patients at risk. Imagine if this was a report about potentially defective nuclear reactor control systems or containment processes at biological hazards research sites.

I believe addressing the issues raised in the report would have been a far more responsible approach than censorship.

-- SS

Addendum 10/24: The author of the paper asked me to remove it from my server as well. It is currently unavailable. This situation is in flux and hopefully will be resolved soon. Hopefully, the issues in the report will be addressed.